Case Reference: 3300872

Appeal Decisions
Inquiry held on 18-20, 24-27 and 31 January, 2, 3 and 27 February, and 19, 20
April 2023 and 27 April 2023
Site visits made on 18 January and 4 May 2023
by Zoë Hill BA(Hons) MRTPI DipBldgCons(RICS) IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12th December 2023
Appeal A Ref: APP/K5600/W/22/3300872
South Kensington Underground Station, 20-48 (even) and 36-46 (odd)
Thurloe Street, and 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street; 1-13 South Kensington
Station, 20-34 Thurloe Square, London, SW7 2NA
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
• The application Ref: PP/20/03216, dated 8 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 13
December 2021.
• The development proposed is mixed use development of the land around South
Kensington Station providing for: the demolition and redevelopment of the Bullnose
(including Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1), demolition and façade retention of the
Thurloe Street Building, refurbishment of the retail facades along Thurloe Street,
refurbishment of the Arcade, construction of a building along Pelham Street comprising
of residential use (Use Class C3), retail use (A1, A2 and A3), and Office use (use Class
B1), construction of a building along Thurloe Square to provide for Use Class C3,
alterations to South Kensington Station to provide for Step-free access to the District
and Circle Lines and fire escape, including consequential alterations to the layout of the
Ticket Hall, construction of two retail facades within the Subway, and other works
incidental to the application proposal.
Appeal B Ref: APP/K5600/Y/22/3301446
South Kensington Underground Station, 20-48 (even) and 36-46 (odd)
Thurloe Street, 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street, 20-34 Thurloe Square, London,
SW7 2NA
• The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
• The application Ref: LB/20/03217, dated 8 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 13
December 2021.
• The works proposed are restoration and refurbishment of the retail facades within the
Arcade, alterations to the Ticket Hall within the South Kensington Station to provide for
step-free access, construction of a fire escape stairwell, construction of two retail
facades within the Subway, demolition of the brick wall along Pelham Street and other
associated works.
Appeal Decisions
1. The appeals are allowed in part and dismissed in part as follows:-
2. The appeals are dismissed insofar as they relate to planning permission and
works to listed buildings in respect of construction of two retail facades within
the Subway at the site identified as Land at South Kensington Underground
Station; 20-34 (even) Thurloe Street and 36-48 (even) Thurloe Street; and 1-9
(odd) Pelham Street, London SW7 2NA, in accordance with the terms of the
applications, Refs: PP/20/03216 and LB/20/03217, dated 8 June 2020, and the
plans submitted with them.
3. The appeal is allowed planning permission is granted insofar it relates to mixed
use development of the land around South Kensington Station providing for:
the demolition and redevelopment of the Bullnose (including Use Classes1 A1,
A2, A3 and B1), demolition and façade retention of the Thurloe Street Building,
refurbishment of the retail facades along Thurloe Street, refurbishment of the
Arcade, construction of a building along Pelham Street comprising of residential
use (Use Class C3), retail use (A1, A2 and A3), and Office use (use Class B1),
construction of a building along Thurloe Street to provide for Use Class C3,
alterations to South Kensington Station to provide for step-free access to the
District and Circle Lines and fire escape, including consequential alterations to
the layout of the Ticket Hall, and other works incidental to the application
proposal, at Land at South Kensington Underground Station; 20-34 (even)
Thurloe Street and 36-48 (even) Thurloe Street; and 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street,
London SW7 2NA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref:
PP/20/03216, dated 8 June 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to
the conditions in the attached schedule.
4. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for works described
as restoration and refurbishment of the retail facades within the Arcade,
alterations to the Ticket Hall within South Kensington Station to provide for
step-free access, construction of a fire escape stairwell, demolition of the brick
wall along Pelham Street and other associated works, at land at South
Kensington Underground Station; 20-34 (even) Thurloe Street and 36-48
(even) Thurloe Street; and 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street, London SW7 2NA in
accordance with the terms of the application Ref: LB/20/03217, dated 8 June
2020, and the plans submitted with it subject to the conditions in the attached
schedule.
Preliminary Matters
5. The Resident’s Associations consider that the site address is incorrect and
should not refer to Thurloe Square but Thurloe Street. This matter was raised
at the Case Management Conference. Subsequently it was agreed by the main
parties that the site address would be more accurate if it read ‘Land at South
Kensington Underground Station; 20-34 (even) Thurloe Street and 36-48
(even) Thurloe Street; and 1-9 (odd) Pelham Street, London SW7 2NA’. The
site area has been clear throughout to all parties involved in the application
and subsequent appeal. However, for clarity I have amended the site location
description to the form agreed in my decisions above, this also reflects the
1 I note that the Use Classes have been subject to change. However, in accordance with the procedural guidance
for those alterations, as the date of the application pre-dates that change the application description of
development remains unaltered.
wording the related s.106 Agreement but varies from the details in the header
which reflects the description set out on the application forms.
6. In addition, the listed building works proposed are set out in the header above
as they are referred to on the application form. Whilst the Council’s decision
notice for the listed building consent reflects the planning permission details,
the application form description more clearly identifies the works proposed. I
therefore shall not amend the description in respect of works as set out on the
application. I note the Council’s decision notice sets out the plans upon which
that application was considered, and they are limited to the relevant works
rather than the development as implied by the description.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, I also note that the Thurloe Estate and Smith
Charity Conservation Area is sometimes recorded in slightly different terms as,
on occasion, ‘Estates’ and ‘Smith’s’ are used. I shall refer to the form initially
set out as this reflects the title used in the designation of the Conservation
Area extension in 1990.
8. During the planning process plans were revised as is clearly set out in the
decision notices (application amended 16.08.20212) and these were consulted
upon. The plans considered in these appeals were also clearly identified within
the appeal submission documentation. There is nothing before me to suggest
that any prejudice arises from consideration of those plans which have been
publicly available throughout the appeals process or the minor points of
clarification made as part of that process.
9. The matter of photographic images and their accuracy in representing what the
eye might see has been raised as an issue. However, this matter was
addressed in the planning process and well before the Inquiry took place. After
February 2019 all parties including Historic England had 50mm and/or 50mm
equivalent (cropped) images alongside wider focal length images. Moreover,
there is a vast amount of material to support the decision-making process,
including both the application plans and a scaled model.
10. Reference was made to the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment which provides advice aimed at Landscape including townscape.
This document is clear that assessment should be tailored to circumstances and
that assessment relies on professional judgement. The London View
Management Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) advice on
judging development in the capital and considers how to select an appropriate
field of view, noting how images depict specific things and can have different
purposes. Taken together these documents make it plain that images are
important for a variety of purposes but are only part of what is necessary when
assessing visual impacts. I am satisfied that the images before me are not
intended to be misleading or unrepresentative and that they assist in
understanding the development proposed. Critical to the appraisal is seeing
the site, its surroundings and views and being aware of those images in the
real-life context. I note that the site and surroundings were visited on
numerous occasions and during two formal visits at which I took time to view
specific images that TOLA was concerned about in their real-life context.
Whilst I appreciate that there may be artistic use of shading in some images
and plans (in particular regarding roof-top equipment), which is not helpful,
2 The scheme was also amended in January 2021. Both sets of amendments were consulted upon as set out in the
Officer’s Committee Report CDJ1
this does not alter my clear view regarding the acceptability of the images
supplied as set out above. I shall not re-visit the issue of the acceptability and
credibility of those images. However, I am mindful that the August DAS
Addendum street view perspective for Thurloe Square provides an illustration
over which there was doubt and ultimately an acceptance that can only be
viewed as an indicative perspective view.
11. In terms of the main issues the Council had separate character and appearance
and heritage issues in its reason for refusal and I agree that these are separate
matters. However, having reflected on this, being mindful that with the duty
under s.72 of the Act3 establishes the desirability of preserving or enhancing
the character of the Conservation Area itself and the fact that the National
Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) goes beyond this and seeks
consideration of the setting of heritage assets, which includes conservation
areas, the design implications will be largely covered by the heritage
assessments. Therefore, I shall not entirely subdivide the assessment, as
much is a holistic assessment that has to be particularly robust given the
heritage sensitivities of the site. Rather I will conclude on the general
character and appearance matters following on from the heritage matters
having regard to the cited development plan policies on design matters.
Main Issues
12. The main issues in Appeals A and B are:-
(a) whether or not the proposed development/works would preserve the
listed buildings identified as:- South Kensington Station, South Kensington
Station Subway, nos. 1-29 Pelham Place, nos. 45-51 and 52 Thurloe
Square and nos. 6-12 Thurloe Square, or their setting or any special
architectural or historic interest which they possess; and, the effect on the
non-designated heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street; and,
(b) whether or not the proposed development/works would preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the Thurloe Estate and Smith
Charity Conservation Area.
It is then necessary to consider the matters raised by the Rule 6 (6) parties
and particularly the following so that they can be accounted for in the
planning and heritage balances in accordance with the weight they are due:
For Appeal A:
(c) the effect of the noise of construction works on living conditions for
occupiers of nearby dwellings during the development phase; and,
(d) whether or not the scheme provides a policy compliant amount of
affordable housing having in mind economic viability; and,
(e) whether there are any other matters against the proposal which should
be considered in the planning balance.
For Appeals A and B:
3 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
(f) the benefits arising from the works and development that should be
weighed in the overall heritage and planning balances including the
weight to be attached to those benefits.
The heritage and planning balances then need to be made having regard to the
Acts, the Development Plan, the Framework and all other material considerations.
Reasons
Introductory Matters
13. South Kensington Station is served by the District, Circle and Piccadilly Lines.
In addition to providing access to South Kensington, this station is the main
point at which to alight for the cultural and academic institutions, including the
Natural History Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Science Museum,
and Imperial College. As a collective this forms a heritage asset (individually
designated) not just of a national level, but of a global significance as a hub of
advancement, research and learning as well as simple curiosity and even
wonder, since its conception in the Victorian era.
14. In addition to redeveloping the station site with the housing, offices and
business uses set out in the description, the proposed development includes
provision for step-free access to the District and Circle lines. Demolition,
including of historic fabric, would be required to deliver the scheme proposed.
15. An application for Station Capacity Upgrade (SCU) works has already been
approved (PA/17/06327). This provides for the rebuilding of the disused
platform on the north side of the station, a canopy, stairs from the ticket hall
and installation of two lift shafts from the ticket hall to platform level (District
and Circle Lines), an emergency exit to Thurloe Street, an enlarged ticket hall
and refurbishment of the existing ticket hall. However, the installation of the
lifts is part of the Station Enhancement Works (SEW) sought as part of this
appeal scheme.
16. The site is in a highly accessible location where ‘in principle’ the Council accepts
that the type of development proposed would be acceptable in land use terms,
according with many policies of the London Plan (2021) and Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan (2019). However, the detailed proposals for
housing, offices and retail uses all suited to the Central Activity Zone, have
resulted in the refusals and therefore these current appeals. The main
objections relate to design, size and scale and harm to the historic
environment.
17. In general terms the proposed development falls within four key groupings; the
Bullnose, Pelham Street, Thurloe Street and a corner block over the bridge
near Thurloe Square. The development of the Bullnose and Thurloe Street
require demolition, whereas the other two areas of development do not, save
for some walls.
Both Appeals A and B: Listed Buildings and Non-Designated Heritage
Assets
(a) The Listed Buildings identified as: South Kensington Station, the listed
subway, 1-29 Pelham Place, 45-51 and 52 Thurloe Square and 6-12 Thurloe
Square and the non-designated heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street.
South Kensington Station
18. The Station, designed by Sir John Fowler, dates from 1867-68. It is important
in understanding social and technological advancement in metropolitan mass
transport infrastructure being the southward termination point at the time for
the world’s first underground railway system for the public. Later additions and
alterations have taken place to provide for greater transport provision. The
Edwardian arcade (1907), by George Sherrin, has a glazed barrel-vaulted roof
with shops either side. The survival of this once exciting and innovative arcade
along with the remains of Fowler’s early underground architecture, including
the revetments constructed to provide for the underground, are all of particular
national interest. Indeed, the list description is clear that ‘the rest of the station
is not regarded as possessing special interest’ although the Leslie Green ox-
blood coloured faience (glazed tile) frontage on Pelham Street is identified as
being of interest contributing to the Conservation Area.
19. The extent of the listing, which has not been disputed, has been set out in the
Statement of Common Ground; in addition to the above, and noting that
station includes the ticket hall, it identifies the platforms, ox-blood building,
Bullnose, brick wall along Pelham Street, boundary wall at the corner of
Thurloe Square and the shop at 10 Station Arcade which extends onto Thurloe
Street. Clearly it is an asset with many facets, not least as an example of urban
transport-related architecture. The functional nature of the building makes it of
no less interest than an obviously ‘architectural’ building. Rather, it has very
particular architectural design qualities relating to both being intended as an
attractive building and a functional one, demonstrating technological advances.
20. The arcade is important as an example of late C19th commercial architecture
and specifically as a glazed shopping area, being impressive when first built,
reflecting technological advancements in glass and metal work technology of
the day. It has seen alterations, some of which I saw would be reversible and
have not significantly damaged the historic fabric. Other alterations are much
more significant, such as the modern aluminium framed shopfronts. The
scheme proposes refurbishment of the arcade, retaining the remaining original
shopfronts where possible and restoring others so that they more closely
reflect the form of the remaining early shopfronts, being modelled on no 6,
which remains largely intact. However, unit 10, which extends onto Thurloe
Street, one of the two remaining original shopfronts, would be considerably
altered insofar as it would have to accommodate the Step Free Access (SFA)
provision. Thus, whilst much of the work to the arcade would be a significant
heritage benefit of the scheme there would be some elements of moderate
harm. Despite the scope of the change identified, on balance, I consider the
scheme accords with the aims of Local Plan policy CL10.
21. The SFA and Station Capacity Upgrade (SCU) works (which are internal to the
building and are largely already approved, see introductory matters above),
including provision of lifts, changes to barrier arrangements and ticket hall
works, do raise some concerns over matters of detail although these could be
resolved by conditions. Indeed, these works are important to ensure the
proper functioning of this heritage asset and transport hub, which presently
sees closures because of capacity issues, and which fails to be inclusive as it
does not currently have SFA. Thus, whilst there would be a little harm in
respect of these changes, it would represent part of an evolution of the
functional use of the building as a station, and listed building status should not
ordinarily seek to resist proportionate practical change to improve public
transport infrastructure.
22. The proposals would lead to the loss of part of the original station’s western
wall. The loss of historic fabric in this way is something not to be considered
lightly as it inevitably results in harm to the significance of the listed building.
This section of wall was uncovered during site investigation works and
represents an important discovery, contributing to its significance. The works,
which would include puncturing through the wall, are sought to facilitate
circulation and better use of the building space. The loss of fabric of this
original station wall would amount to harm. However, in my view, as
characterised by the Framework, it would be at the lower end (little to
moderate) of less than substantial harm.
23. The existing Bullnose building, of an almost semi-circular plan form, is a quirky
low height structure occupied by commercial retail premises. Whilst there is
debate about how temporary a structure it is and about whether the intention
was for it to be a taller and more imposing building (inferred from its structural
framework drawings annotated with calculations), it has stood for a long time,
predating the Conservation Area and some of the historic development in its
immediate surroundings. As noted by many of the objectors to the scheme,
including SAVE, this low-key development has its own clear character and
identity, with the feel of a small town or village development subsumed within
a highly developed urban context.
24. Whilst this is not unattractive, and is agreed to be a curtilage listed structure,
the list description makes it clear that it is not regarded as possessing any
special interest. In light of this, and being mindful of the economic and cultural
context, there is sound reason for its redevelopment, despite the harm that
would arise from the demolition of this structure that nevertheless expresses a
degree of local interest. Indeed, some of those objecting to the scheme agree
replacement would not be unacceptable, rather their concerns mainly relate to
the detail of the replacement. Given the clear steer within the list description I
consider that only modest harm should be afforded the demolition here subject
to acceptable replacement.
25. The proposed redevelopment of the Bullnose would retain the historic, almost
semi-circular, plan form. That said, it seeks better use of the land in terms of
increasing the floorspace provided by increasing the height of the built form,
and better utilising that space by improving circulation arrangements. I
appreciate that Resident’s Associations, and some other objectors, including
the Victorian Society, are opposed to the idea of a new Bullnose building of the
height proposed. However, once the principle of demolition is accepted it is
necessary to consider what would be appropriate to replace it, and those
factors must have regard to the surroundings, the listed building itself and
other material factors.
26. The proposed height would be similar to that of surrounding buildings at the
highway junction where the building is situated. This would better reflect the
hierarchy of building heights within the Conservation Area as set out in the
Thurloe Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area Appraisal (2016) (CAA).
The design details pick up cues from that surrounding development, reflecting
colours and proportions of existing built form, albeit with a modern, less
ornate, but carefully detailed quality. In this respect the main road frontage
would create a focal point for the station empathising with the geometry of the
listed building taking clear references from its surroundings. It would
undeniably represent a wholly different structure which would be dominant
when compared with the existing Bullnose building and station itself. However,
much of the station is recessed below ground level and, along with its arcade,
is largely inward-looking, reflecting the subterranean nature of the
underground. Thus, the proposed Bullnose development has a relatively
limited effect upon the historic core of the grade II listed station when
perceived from within the station.
27. The relationship is less satisfactory in terms of the Bullnose ‘rear’ elevation,
that which is internal to the site and abuts the arcade. At this juncture the
height of the proposed building would be a marked contrast to that of Sherrin’s
arcade, and I accept the objectors concerns that it would appear as a ‘cliff
face’. This is similar to the historic juxtaposition of the Thurloe Street terrace
and the station but differs given the proposed upper parts of the Bullnose
would stand as a more isolated structure. Thus, it would be clearly read as a
new addition of some stridency. There would be a change to outlook and light
within the arcade as a consequence of the proximity. To my mind this
relationship, along with the less sensitive and, despite revisions, rather
anodyne exterior rear elevational treatment, would have a harmful effect on
the setting of the listed arcade, and when seen in views from the east on
Thurloe Street and Pelham Street. I would characterise this harm to be little or
modest. However, as with other less than substantial heritage harms this has
to be weighed against others public benefits including the heritage benefits of
conservation and in restoration of the arcade itself.
28. In terms of the relationship the Leslie Green ox-blood building (1905), with its
distinctive glazed faience, adequate separation and clear difference in materials
and style would mean the latter building would still be read in its own right.
Although there are issues with the quality of the inward facing elevation of the
proposed Bullnose, which would detract from the station complex, this is
focussed on the arcade. The setting of the ox-blood building, deemed by
Historic England not to be of special interest in the list description (rather of
Conservation Area interest), already incorporates tall buildings, and would not
be unduly compromised by the mass of the proposed Bullnose building. As
such, I am of the view that given the disposition of buildings and their
treatment and detailing, the effect on this heritage asset neutral.
29. Thus, I conclude that despite demolition of the historic Bullnose building and
the concerns regarding the replacement building particularly in respect of its
rear elevation, less than substantial harm to South Kensington Station would
arise from the proposed Bullnose building and that this harm would be in the
lower range of less than substantial.
30. Turning to the effects of the Pelham Street development on the Station, the
brick wall along Pelham Street at pavement level is not of the same historic
provenance as the station. Indeed, since the development of the station,
buildings have occupied much of this road frontage which have themselves
been demolished. The loss of the modern boundary wall, much of it seeming to
date from the 1970’s, would not be harmful.
31. Evidence indicates that on the station side of Pelham Street a terrace was
constructed between 1914 and 1916. It is also seems that these retail and
residential units were supported over the tracks on the cast iron structure that
had previously held the 1871 station canopy, a structure that remains in situ
today and which is of special interest as part of the early station fabric. In
addition, the station wall, with its revetments which changes in detailing along
its length, on this side within the cutting, is also of special interest as part of
the early fabric. Those key structures would remain protected under the appeal
scheme, with a new supporting structure required to carry the proposed
development and a condition requiring an undercroft improvement scheme to
be submitted and implemented. This would be significantly deeper than the
cast iron work but designed to ensure that earlier structure would remain
evident as such it would not harm this structure but would improve its
longevity by refurbishment and protection. Thus, despite the greater degree of
‘overbuilding’ the balance is nonetheless, one of no harm to its special interest.
32. The proposed Pelham Street development would rise precipitously over the
station platform area. However, this has been the case in the past and the
current purposeless cast ironwork in some respects would be returned to an
appearance of its former role as a supporting structure, albeit essentially
visually. Moreover, views out towards the sky would remain, albeit reduced,
and for those on the platform using the station it would still feel ‘open air’.
Views to street level here are of less importance to users of the station
platform, which is essentially inward facing, reflecting its historic use within the
substantial engineered walls of the original fabric and existing buildings
including those on Thurloe Street.
33. The proposed fenestration of the elevation facing the station cutting, with large
expanses of glazing for the office development and vertical bands of glazing
within the residential development, would have light reflecting qualities that
would reduce the overall effect of the bulk of the development, although on
evenings light spill would occur. As a whole, therefore, this part of the
development would only marginally harm the special interest of this part of
station through a sense of overbearing enclosure, compromising its setting.
This is notwithstanding the area being focussed on as an arrival/departure
thoroughfare associated with its subterranean genesis.
34. Whilst the development along the length of Pelham Street would prevent
opportunistic and remarkable views, as noted by the London Design Review
Panel, into the underground cutting for those sufficiently tall to see down, this
is an incidental attribute of the station’s special historic interest rather than
being key to it. Moreover, views of the structure can be obtained from within
the station itself and so I do not attach significant weight in terms of the
impacts upon the listed building albeit there would be modest harm from the
loss of this view.
35. Turning to the effect of the Thurloe Street Development, at the opposite side of
the station, a similar situation arises with the demolition of the rear of Nos 20-
34. I shall address that non-designated heritage asset later but, in terms of
the station, whilst there would be a loss of some historic interest derived from
the functional design of the rear of that building there would be no direct harm
to the fabric of the listed revetments and in most respects the massing of the
proposed redeveloped building would reflect the existing building. However,
the boxed out modern form combined with the proposed mansard roof which
would appear as a further floor would add to the dominance of the building at
this side. As such, limited less than substantial harm by virtue of the modern
block design and massing would arise to the setting of the station from the
development at this side.
36. In respect of the Thurloe Square Development it remains apparent that this
open area is the product of underground’s development wherein the original
terrace was partially demolished and truncated, with no 52 subsequently being
added in 1888. The remaining open space used for a scaffolders yard/parking,
and the associated street frontage hoarding, is not particularly prominent from
within the station, although viewed when descending the stairs to the platform
and from the platform itself and includes some original/early station red brick
walling. The development would result a loss of some red-brick continuation of
the revetment.
37. The proposed development would provide residential accommodation enclosing
this end of the station at street level. The modern design and massing would
result in a block that could be better detailed for its location although the
functional and plain rear face of buildings are characteristic here. This part of
the development would incorporate means of escape from the platforms to
street level. The visually simple means of escape would not significantly
impinge upon the historic fabric or its character and is manifestly necessary for
safety. As with the development on Pelham Street, there would be change to
the setting of the station within its cutting but of limited harmful effect upon
the special interest of the listed building and its setting.
38. Overall, therefore in terms of the effect of the proposed development on the
Station I conclude that there would be harms of varying magnitude, but none
alone or cumulatively would amount to more than less than substantial harm
and therefore in accordance with paragraph 202 of the Framework that harm
must be weighed against any public benefits derived from the proposed
development.
South Kensington Station Subway
39. The station subway is independently listed at grade II. The list description
clearly details the fabric of the subway, notably its engineered form, materials
and its purpose. It also records its history, and this does not require repeating
here. However, it is also clear that ‘The subway is well preserved, its structure
and finishes largely original’ and its role in accessing Albertopolis since its
construction in 1885 is significant.
40. I saw that the subway is largely unaltered, save for advertisement boards, and
the provision of lighting and close circuit television/security cameras and
functional trunking and cabling associated with this. The absence of significant
detractors from the original form is a material factor here.
41. The proposal includes puncturing the subway tunnel wall to create the SFA and
to create a new retail space, inserting new shop fronts. I appreciate that the
SFA is essential and modest in its scope of works. However, I have no doubt
that the physical works and likely activity associated with retail premises,
including displays of goods, would detract from the simple sleek form of the
glazed brick tunnel. This would detract from its special historic and
architectural interest as an unfettered route between the underground station
and the cultural and educational centre of Albertopolis. This character is
significant as it epitomises technological advances and the enthusiasm of the
time for innovation and civic improvement in public facilities, including in
transport provision. In this context breaching the elegant, though austere,
nature of the subway tunnel with a visually busy retail frontage would be
unacceptably discordant and would significantly harm the special architectural
and historic interest of this listed building thereby failing to preserve it.
42. At the Inquiry the effect of this element of the scheme was discussed and given
the harm, a proposal to omit it by condition was discussed. I consider that this
element of the scheme to be significantly harmful to the grade II listed subway
for the reasons set out. As it is clearly severable, and no case was advanced
that severing this element would prejudice the remainder of the scheme, I
consider it should be omitted. While it would be possible to use a condition to
omit it from the scheme, after due consideration I consider that a split decision
would be more appropriate as it makes it clear that this part of the scheme
gains no consent for works or planning permission. I shall therefore refuse this
element of the proposal and need not consider further the effects of the rest of
the proposal upon this independently grade II listed building.
Effect on the setting of 1-29 Pelham Place
43. Nos 1-29 Pelham Place form a 3-storey terrace of stuccoed brick. Its
significance is derived from its architectural form and composition. The stucco,
continuous parapet, modillion cornice and second-floor band, at windowsill
level, create an architecturally literate, harmonious, appearance which displays
elegance, wealth, and status. That sense of status is reinforced by the
elevated positioning of the main doors, with their semi-circular fanlights,
accessed by steps. It forms part of the wider Pelham Crescent grouping which
is similarly detailed. Thus, its special interest lies in George Basevi’s confident
metropolitan delivery of a classical architectural style. In full recognition of this
Historic England has graded this building at II*.
44. The primary street relationship of this terrace is with the houses opposite. In
terms of the appeal scheme the greatest inter-relationship is at the junction
with Pelham Street where no 29, at the corner, faces towards the appeal site.
No 29 Pelham Place differs from the rest of the terrace with a canted bay and
engages with the change in street pattern as it curves, but again its main focus
and relationship is with the rest of the terrace and houses opposite. The flank
elevation contains windows situated either side of the chimney stack and faces
the appeal site.
45. The setting of the building at this point is degraded by the railway, wherein a
parking area surrounded by hoardings and a wall that attracts graffiti is located
on the opposite side of the road. This is one of few detractors identified within
the Conservation Area Appraisal and similarly provides a degraded setting for
this listed building in a manner which is completely at odds with the remainder
of its surroundings. Thus, the poor setting is such that there is opportunity to
develop this site and better understand its significance as a consequence.
46. In terms of the wider ‘around station development’, I am satisfied that the
separation of this listed building from the proposed Bullnose building and the
development in Thurloe Street is such that there would be little harm to its
setting other than in the most marginal sense which would be accounted for in
terms of other heritage assets. Therefore, the focus here is on the effect of the
proposed Pelham Street development and the proposed corner block over the
bridge at/near Thurloe Square.
47. The proposed Thurloe Square building seeks to reflect the proportions of the
historic buildings on Thurloe Square (details set out below) with a clear vertical
emphasis. It also seeks to reflect a similar rhythm, be sympathetic in its solid
to void ratios across the width of the building, and engages with detailing such
as porticos, string courses and railings. Furthermore, the floors are similar in
heights. These details and materials have been refined over time (and
consulted upon) including with input from Historic England. However, the
festination, with its almost unbroken ground to eaves height, which contrasts
with the traditional domestic glazing arrangements of the historic properties,
results in a detracting ‘modernistic’ appearance. Further, despite the thought
involved in the proposed scheme, the set-back deployed for the attic storey is
not sufficient to make it adequately recessive and thus it would result in an
uncharacteristically bulky mass that would fail to fully respect the setting of the
existing buildings of the square.
48. The scheme proposes a sensitive and unimposing access arrangement for the
emergency stairway to the station platforms. This would have a neutral effect
on the listed buildings and their settings. The proposed development follows
the road, and the continuous form of the terrace is angled. Where the terrace
abuts Pelham Street the flank elevation has less fenestration, much as might
be anticipated in such a location. As such it does not seek to compete with the
Pelham Street terrace. However, nor does it take the same considered but
simple approach with which the end of the Basevi Pelham Place terrace is
detailed. Thus, the rather bland side elevation fails to fully respond to the
setting of the grade II* terrace which is exacerbated by the fact that at this
point the massing reflects that of Thurloe Square and so is neither subservient
to, or particularly sensitive towards, the Pelham Place terrace.
49. However, acknowledging those failings, at this point the proposed development
would create a measured but altered setting for the end of the listed Pelham
Street terrace. The newly formed sense of enclosure would reflect the street
pattern and create the sense of intimacy of a residential estate more akin to
the development that would have existed, and which one would expect to see
encouraged here. Moreover, the harm is primarily to the setting of the flank
end of the terrace rather than the more significant terrace ensemble.
50. The remainder of the Pelham Street development would create an entirely
developed road frontage almost linking with the ox-blood building. In terms of
the Pelham Place terrace, Pelham Street has limited effect on its setting as it
principally relates to a kinetic experience. However, the proposed scheme
would have some benefits over the existing situation given it would introduce a
live residential frontage rather than the existing blank wall. The proposed
massing would be readily visually dominant, and to some extent the kinetic
experience of arrival at Pelham Place would be harmed by the introduction of
such a large mass of building along this approach. As such, I consider this
would have a small but nevertheless harmful effect upon the setting of the
listed terrace.
51. Overall, whilst there would be detracting elements, including roof-top
paraphernalia on the proposed development, there would be positive benefits
too. I consider the harms are modest and amount to less than substantial
harm and at the lower end of that spectrum.
The effect on the setting of Nos 45-51 and 52 Thurloe Square (west side)
52. As with Pelham Place, this terrace of houses, is another of George Basevi’s
confident essays in metropolitan housing, albeit the materials impart a more
robust appearance. From 1839-44 it is of three principal storeys with a
basement and attic with a mansard roof above. The status driven design
includes large projecting porches and a continuous balcony with iron railings
which draw the eye. This terrace of brick above stucco, is grade II in status.
No 52, of similar height and massing, but very different character due to its
materials, asymmetry and fussy detailing, is a later red/buff brick Queen Anne
revival style dwelling and is identified for Group Value.
53. The terrace here derives significance from its architects and architecture as
well as from its relationship to the square itself. In this respect the appeal site
does not directly face the garden square and is separated from the Basevi
terrace by no 52. This increases the scope for a different design to be
accommodated. More significantly, the existing open space created by the
railway’s arrival is uncharacteristic of the surrounding housing estates which
make good use of land often in an evidently planned manner.
54. The proposed development would involve demolition of part of the existing wall
structure. The proposed five storey residential building would sit on the railway
bridge. In this location the 12 dwellings proposed would be in a block and new
fire escape provisions would be created from platform level to Thurloe Square.
55. Given the degree of separation from the Bullnose, Thurloe Street and Pelham
Street, I do not intend to consider those aspects of the proposed scheme as
they would have very limited effect upon the setting of the Thurloe Square
dwellings considered here. The more significant effect would come from the
proposed development near this listed terrace. As set out above, the proposed
Thurloe Square building seeks to reflect, but not copy, the proportions of the
listed classical buildings on Thurloe Square. Particularly given the position of
no 52, which breaks the cohesiveness of the Basevi design, the modern
approach reflecting the key stylistic, mathematical, and aesthetic qualities of
the C19th classical architecture would be largely responsive and sympathetic.
However, as already identified, the glazing arrangement in its horizontal
subdivision is uncharacteristic and would represent a visual discordance that
would cause some harm. Further the mansard roof would box out this level in
an uncharacteristic way and the roof-top plant would be likely to be less than
satisfactory in some views.
56. Thus, whilst much of the relationship when seen from the public realm would
predominantly be read as a sympathetic modern addition to the locality,
respecting the grain of development and adding to the enclosure of the square,
there would still be notable discordant elements. I therefore conclude that this
aspect of the scheme would have a harmful effect on the setting of Nos 45-51
and 52 Thurloe Square but that this would be at the low end of less than
substantial harm.
The effect on the setting of Nos 6-12 Thurloe Square (south side)
57. Also by George Basevi, as with the terrace set out above, it is of three storeys
with a basement and attic, with projecting porches, balcony and street level
iron railings. Being only slightly earlier (1839-43) it is similar in character to
the terrace as detailed above. The composed classical design is central to the
quality of this area and leads to its grade II designation.
58. Between this terrace and the appeal site is No 5 ‘The Thin House’ an unlisted
property from the late C18th which occupies a narrow almost triangular plot.
59. As with 45-52 Thurloe Square, a key aspect of the appeal scheme is that of
filling the corner of the square itself. For the reasons as identified above in
respect of 45-52 Thurloe Square, I conclude that the scheme would also have a
limited harmful effect on the setting of the terrace 6-12 Thurloe Square.
The effect on the non-designated heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street
60. To deal with the individually identified heritage buildings in this section I shall
consider the effect on the non-designated heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street
under this main issue, although it is prudent to acknowledge that this heritage
asset has no statutory protection in its own right and so is to be treated
differently to the assets identified above. Despite this it seems clear that near
total demolition, with only the Thurloe Street façade to remain, is something
which amounts to substantial harm though to a non-designated heritage asset.
Thus, it is necessary, in accordance with the Framework, to consider the value
of the non-designated asset as a balanced judgement needs to be made having
regard to the scale of any harm or loss (which is significant here) and the
significance of the asset.
61. Nos 20-34 comprise a terrace constructed after the arrival of the underground
at this location. In particular, the rear design which includes limited window
openings on the return flank walls, so as to limit the ingress of smoke, soot and
steam into the dwellings from the original stream rail route is of interest. This
void to solid relationship paints a picture of how the underground trains once
operated. In addition, the building demonstrates interest in its plan form,
including the relationship with the ground floor shop units. In this respect and
noting the quality of detail in the first-floor accommodation which I observed at
my site visit, the social history and relative wealth associated with the
mercantile occupations is also of local interest and the fabric of the building
contributes to the historic record of how society operated at this time. The
Victorian Society objects to the loss of this building and to the design of its
replacement.
62. However, whilst the ground floor shop units remain (though with limited
original shopfronts) the building has been used in more recent years as flats of
varying sizes, with ad hoc alterations that significantly undermine the internal
architectural cohesion of the building. Whilst those changes represent further
changes in social history, the lack of integrity limits the interest of the building
and I note that despite listing being sought, Historic England declined to do so
at the earliest stage (Reject at Initial Assessment Report). This affirms that
little weight in planning terms should attached to the loss of the building in
terms of its general architectural and historic interest.
63. It has been accepted that the main façade is of visual interest and contributes
to the streetscene, and indeed Conservation Area. Whilst facadism is neither
protection of historic fabric nor development of comprehensive quality modern
architecture, the scheme includes retention of the façade to respect the values
associated with the appearance of the building. Behind the façade, a proposed
new build development would make better use of the site for residential and
commercial occupation without the constraints of the existing plan form, which
have led in part to sub-standard residential accommodation. In addition, a
new mansard roof would increase floorspace, although at a visual cost despite
the front parapet, materials and detailing being altered.
64. The new development would be able to improve accessibility, standardise
internal levels and improve thermal efficiency, daylight and noise attenuation
and this would create a better use of the land. It would also contribute to the
facilitation of SFA which I shall address later.
65. I have already addressed the effect of the proposal in respect of 20-34 Thurloe
Street on the setting of South Kensington Station. In terms of this non-
designated asset itself, I find that there would be substantial harm arising from
its loss, in terms of its general local interest, but that harm of itself is of limited
weight in the wider heritage context it being a building of inadequate quality to
be given designated heritage asset status. Thus, the greater part of its historic
value is in terms of its contribution the Conservation Area, in part sustained by
the façadism approach, to which I will soon turn.
Conclusion on Listed buildings and the Non-designated Asset 20-34 Thurloe
Street
66. In answering whether or not the proposed development/works would preserve
the listed buildings identified as South Kensington Station, South Kensington
Station Subway, nos. 1-29 Pelham Place, nos. 45-51 and 52 Thurloe Square
and nos. 6-12 Thurloe Square, or their setting or any special architectural or
historic interest which they possess; and, the effect on the non-designated
heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street, there is no doubt that there would be
harm to heritage assets as a result of the proposed development.
67. In terms of the listed subway I have determined that the appeals should fail.
However, for the remaining designated heritage assets in each case the harm
identified is less than substantial and even taken together cumulatively this
does not amount to anywhere approaching substantial harm.
68. Whilst I have identified substantial harm to 20-34 Thurloe Street this in not a
designated heritage asset and therefore does not carry the same value as
designated assets and I have explained why limited weight should be afforded
to its loss.
69. Whilst the parties have differing views of what constitutes substantial harm in
this case, I have been mindful that substantial harm whether judged by
caselaw or national guidance is a very significant matter where the special
architectural and/or historic interests of the asset in question might be vitiated
or all but drained away; this is by any standards a high bar. The National
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains it as ‘for example, in determining
whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important
consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key
element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm
to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to
be assessed’. I am satisfied that none of the harms identified alone, or
cumulatively, in terms of the designated heritage assets reach that level.
70. Nonetheless, in terms of designated heritage assets, it is important to be clear
that less than substantial harm does not amount to less than substantial
planning objection. Indeed, that harm, a matter which I am bound to have
special regard to as a matter of statutory duty, is a matter of considerable
importance and weight, and, indeed, a high hurdle4. Moreover, these
considerations are acknowledged within the Framework, which gives great
weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings.
71. Further, there is no doubt that the harm identified amounts to policy conflict in
respect of Policy CL4 of the Local Plan which seeks to protect listed buildings,
preserving the significance of the building, its setting and features of special
architectural or historic interest, resisting demolition in whole or part, and
requiring preservation of features of interest. While some aspects of the
scheme accord with objectives of this policy, for instance reinstating features of
special architectural interest as applies to the arcade, the balance is that policy
conflict would arise.
72. Policy HC1 of the London Plan seeks that development affecting heritage assets
and their settings should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to
the assets significance and appreciation of their surroundings. It particularly
notes that cumulative impacts, albeit of incremental change, should be actively
managed and that development proposals should avoid harm. As such, I find
the balance to be a conflict with this policy too.
(b) The Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Area
73. The Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Area dates from July 1968,
it has been extended three times, the latest being confirmed as being extended
under cover of a memorandum dated 3 May 19905. The area of the extension
was by way of inclusion of the South Kensington Station and properties in
Thurloe Street and Pelham Street. It followed an application to develop the
Station ‘island’ (appeal) site. Given the development pressure and the historic
interest of the site, the extension was considered necessary ‘in order to ensure
the proper relationship of any proposed development to the listed buildings in
Pelham Place and Thurloe Square, and to safeguard views across the eastern
portion of the station site, the entire station island site upto the corner of
Pelham Street with Thurloe Square’6.
74. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which establish its
heritage interest is set out in the designation documents and in ‘The Thurloe
Estate and Smith’s Charity Conservation Area Appraisal’ dated October 2016.
75. The Conservation Area Appraisal is a relatively recent document, it post-dates
the extension to the Conservation Area, and identifies the key features of the
Conservation Area as extended. The summary of its character sets out the key
architects and builders (George Basevi, James Bonnin, Charles James Freake)
and the charity set up by Henry Smith in 1620 to create profit from
development to give relief to the poor and other charitable purposes. In terms
of other aspects, it records that the area displays South Kensington’s
architectural history from the elegance and restraint of the Georgian period,
through late Regency designs and Italianate pomp to the red brick Queen Anne
style at the end of the Victorian period. Typical features of these periods such
as decorative fanlights, timber sash windows and a wealth of stucco detailing
4 As is made explicit in the Court of Appeal in East Northamptonshire DC & Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v SoS
[2015] 1 WLR 45
5 ID11
6 ID11
and ornamental metalwork, such as railings and balconies, are key. More
unusual details such as the Pantheon inspired doors in Thurloe Square are
identified too.
76. The development of the area was speculative with no overall plan for each
estate. However, the streets are designed as whole piece, with terraces for
instance having palace fronts, set in crescents, or built around private garden
squares. It is not disputed that the streets therefore have a coherent design,
character and charm, which is largely well maintained. The high number of
listed buildings, including a number listed at grade II*, is indicative of the
quality of the Conservation Area.
77. The urban form is acknowledged as hierarchical, with the nucleus centred on
South Kensington Station where the plaza is seen as a welcome modern
addition. In this regard, I appreciate that there would be a loss of two oak
trees in this public open space area as a result of the alterations to the
pavement to create a loading bay. Given the need to service the proposed
Pelham Street buildings and the limited space to do so this is a pragmatic
design solution. The creation of that loading area, and the tree loss, in order to
create a functional development would be modest, particularly given there is
scope to include replacement planting within the public realm provision for
which would be controlled by planning conditions. As such, this is not a matter
to which I attribute material harm.
78. In other respects, the Conservation Appraisal says relatively little regarding this
‘nucleus’, but it is noted that the underground railway line runs above ground
across the centre of the Conservation Area and is enclosed by extensive stock
brick walling some of which dates from the nineteenth century. It is
noteworthy that the high timber fencing along Pelham Street is identified as a
detractor; on visiting the site I was struck by just how discordant this part of
the site is when considered in the context of the Conservation Area as a whole.
It is, in my view, a harmful feature in the Conservation Area and its
improvement in an active use could be a considerable enhancement, so better
revealing the significance of the asset as a whole and should be viewed
favourably.
79. Pelham Street forms the southern boundary of the appeal site, with housing on
the southern side dating from the mid C19th. These stucco properties are
smaller than those of Pelham Crescent and Place but reflect the broader
character of the Conservation Area.
80. Thurloe Place, Street and Square are of different phases. The Square being
part of Basevi’s plans is earliest and is of gault brick with stucco to the ground
floors. The houses, whilst harmonious, do not match around the whole square
and there are notable contrasting dwellings such as no 52 in the area which
had been cleared for the underground railway. Thurloe Place and Street reflect
the elegant character of the Square.
81. Shopfronts including those of South Kensington Station Arcade are of interest.
The historic arcade frontages are of bronze or timber, 34 Thurloe Street is
specifically identified as contributing to the Conservation Area. Exhibition Road
was built around 1867 to create a link between South Kensington Station and
the site of the Great Exhibition, now links the station to the museums. This
route differs from the rest of the Conservation Area in its character and
diversity of buildings. Other key characteristics such as materials, windows
and doors, layout, gardens and spaces are also identified. The Conservation
Area context for the appeal development is therefore clearly documented.
82. There is no dispute that the railway resulted in demolition of houses that had
reflected the prevailing character of the area in terms of layout. Moreover, it is
acknowledged since that demolition there has been built development including
along Pelham Street albeit that redevelopment has subsequently been
removed. These development and demolition phases pre-date the
Conservation Area designation. The concept of a ‘broken townscape’ has been
used in respect of this site from relatively early in conceptual design thinking
including when ideas have been presented to the Council, Historic England and
the London Design Panel as well as other consultees and has had a driving
effect upon scheme thinking. Given the forceful impact of the arrival of the
railway there was a clear breaking of the predominantly residential area at that
time, which has left visual scars. That said, the physical imposition of the
railway is a matter of history and has a role as part of the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
83. However, there remains a sense of that schismatic impact. From my site visit I
consider that there are areas in the appeal site which detract from the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area as, in addition to the
fencing on Pelham Street (identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal as a
detractor), the area of land which sits near the bridge at the junction of Pelham
Street with Pelham Place, is currently used for a scaffolders yard/parking is a
negative element, the hoarding at this corner being a site for graffiti as is the
wall.
84. Indeed, the views from Pelham Street and from Pelham Place towards the
appeal site are illustrative of where the high quality of the surrounding
townscape is sorely missing. The flank wall elevations that are visible
combined with the hoarding and the roughly surfaced parking are
uncharacteristic of the surrounding area. It therefore follows that here that is
an opportunity to improve the built appearance of the townscape and improve
its character by creating a more welcoming environment more akin to the
estate housing which establishes much of what is important about the
Conservation Area. Whilst I do not wholly subscribe to the view that the
townscape of the entire site is broken, I agree that this development provides
an opportunity to remove an agreed detracting element and enhance that part
of the Conservation Area. It is important to acknowledge this is the view that
the Council had largely subscribed to until the Inquiry and with which there had
been no significant descent from the London Review Panel (LRP) who did not
demur from or take a stance against the concept of repairing a broken
townscape. In fact the LRP identified the site around the station as ‘a complex
palimpsest of urban relations whose repair appears long overdue, a stance also
taken by the Council’s Design Review Panel. Moreover, Historic England
acknowledged the benefits of enhancing this locality.
85. In other respects, whilst there is a sense of interest on looking into the railway
cutting, this does not give particularly unusual views or opportunity to see
structures which cannot be observed from elsewhere, such as from the station
platform. Although the designation of the Conservation Area extension in 1990
refers to views across the eastern portion of the site there is nothing
compelling to indicate what it was intended to protect albeit there are some
fortuitous views to townscape features beyond.
86. Furthermore, the current situation is clear that the station, as part of the
Conservation Area, may be in the main attractive, but it is failing as a piece of
infrastructure with its operation characterised by frequent closures due to its
functional inadequacy as well as the serious matter of wider accessibility. This
character of the failing function of the historic fabric is at odds with the well-
kept highly desirable residential location. Moreover, in a broader context, it is
at odds with the functional contribution which Exhibition Road makes to the
neighbouring Queens Gate Conservation Area containing the cultural museums
of Albertopolis and indeed the world-renowned cultural quarter.
87. Moreover, even though the Council does not consider this location as being one
in need of repair, it accepts this does not mean there should be no
development here. Thus, accepting that the principle of development is
acceptable, as the Council does, it is necessary to consider whether the
proposed development would be harmful and, if it is, then whether there are
circumstances which might outweigh that harm. Thus, it is important to
calibrate the extent of any harm in relation to the Conservation Area as a
whole.
88. As set out above, the proposed development seeks to demolish and rebuild the
Bullnose and develop the Pelham Street frontage along with that of Thurloe
Square as well as proposing refurbishment of the arcade and redevelopment of
the Thurloe Street building behind a retained façade.
89. In terms of the Conservation Area, refurbishment of the Arcade is a matter
which, largely, is a positive feature of the scheme which gains support from
Local Plan policy CL10 despite the regrettable justified loss of some historic
elements. Further, the redevelopment of Thurloe Square is also positive in
many ways. In contrast to the positives there are clearly some detracting
elements as discussed above, particularly the relationship of the proposed
building at the corner of Thurloe Square with Pelham Street, the height of
development along Pelham Street and some issues with the proposed quality of
detailing for the Bullnose building. But even with those issues the main trust is
to enhance the layout of development reinforcing land use, plan form and
urban grain. However, it also is necessary to address other elements and key
amongst them in this part of the Conservation Area is the effect on identified
views of the grade I museums roofscape, the ox-blood building, Pelham Street
houses and Thurloe Street in particular.
90. Concerns are raised by objectors, including the Victorian Society, around
fortuitous views (rather than designed ones) towards other iconic buildings
within the cultural quarter as one moves around the locality. The 1990
Conservation Area extension specifically sought to protect the view from
Onslow Square towards the Natural History Museum (by Alfred Waterhouse
listed grade I). Other incidental views, for instance from Pelham Street, are
not so significant as to merit attention within the Conservation Area Appraisal.
91. The visual assessment7 provides two views looking out from the Conservation
Area, across the station site, capturing the Station’s Leslie Green ox-blood
faience, and listed buildings situated in Onslow Square. Here the variety of
buildings styles can be readily appreciated, along with modern interventions
such as the plaza at the station entrance and street trees that add positively to
the environment and other more neutral features such as the large expanses of
7 CDA-30
red brick in some of the unlisted interwar development. In addition, there are
fortuitous views of the Natural History Museum towers, seen on the skyline
above the foreground roofscape. There is no doubt that from this position the
views of the Natural History Museum towers would be obscured by the
proposed Bullnose building. However, the proposed building would be
relatively respectful of its context, its height reflecting that of many nearby
buildings and its vertical emphasis similarly so. The contradictory element to
that emphasis is the ox-blood building which is distinctive not just for is glazed
red finish, but also because of its horizontal emphasis created by its massing,
the use of colour and its fenestration. In this respect the separation of this
part of the station from the Bullnose by the arcade would retain that contrary
emphasis. The proposed development on Pelham Street, which would pick up
on that emphasis with its use of string courses and colour, and with a modest
separation would go some way to respect this cherished building. Overall, loss
of the views of the Natural History Museum towers would cause some modest
harm, as would the dominant massing of the proposed Pelham Street
development, to this part of the Conservation Area.
92. Views along Onslow Square over the buildings at this edge of the Conservation
Area would be altered; there is no doubt that the views towards the tops of
Natural History Museum towers which in 1990 Conservation Area extension
sought to protect would be lost. This clearly would constitute an element of
harm, despite the proposed development itself sitting well within the
townscape. This harm would clearly conflict with Local Plan policy CL11, as
indeed would the loss of other views.
93. The view up Old Brompton Road is unusual because the height of the buildings
directs views towards the appeal site; a site which is uncharacteristically low.
Whilst that difference is interesting it does not create a strong focal point or
open space feature. In this respect I consider that the proposed Bullnose
building having regard to the surrounding buildings would create a largely
sympathetic building in the approach towards the Conservation Area which
forms part of its setting. Approaching the site from this direction, the focus is
largely directed by street activity and buildings towards the site but, if taking
time to consider the surroundings, the crown of the Victoria and Albert Museum
(by Sir Henry Cole and Captain Fowke listed grade I) can be seen above the
foreground buildings of the station and Thurloe Street buildings behind. This is
a pleasing sight. However, it is not a designed view and is not particularly
prominent or easy to observe in a meaningful way. Nonetheless, the loss of
this skyline presence would detract, albeit marginally, from the approach to the
Conservation Area wherein the station lies which serves the great museums.
94. Pelham Street is unusual given it is essentially one sided at present once
beyond the ox-blood building. The opposite side of the street, outside of the
Conservation Area, is occupied by Malvern Court, a tall red brick building with 8
floors of accommodation and a distinctive vertical emphasis. This is then
adjoined by long and lower white painted dwellings of two storeys plus
basement and attic, which are followed by red brick bay fronted dwellings a
floor taller before returning to more modest white painted houses with the end
of the Pelham Place terrace completing the block.
95. The proposed development opposite and within the Conservation Area would
seek to respect that form by adding some modulation to the height of the
proposed terrace along its length and recessing the top floor of the proposed
housing development opposite the existing lower height residential properties.
Although, effort to reflect the more modest domestic scale of some of the
existing buildings has been made, this is one of the less successful parts of the
scheme. The material choice nearest the ox-blood building is positive however,
the remaining design along this length would not be particularly sympathetic.
The vertical emphasis, visual subdivision and railings offer some reflection of
the existing dwellings. However, the relationship of wall to glazing, use of
materials and massing, even though seeking to reduce the bulk of the building,
would result in a development that would appear to dominate the existing
housing and would do little to reflect its warm domesticity. This area, to my
mind, is one of the elements which fails to satisfy both Conservation Area
requirements particularly in terms of its outward facing Pelham Street façade.
It also fails to fulfil design policies established in policies CL1 and CL2 of the
Local Plan to which I shall return later.
96. In terms of the Thurloe Street building with its retained façade, I have also
noted that objectors consider that the additional mansard floor would conflict
with Local Plan Policy CL8 which seeks to resist additional floors on existing
buildings. However, this is in many respects is a new building. Taking a
pragmatic view therefore I do not attach weight to conflict with Local Plan
Policy CL8. However, despite some improvements to the design following
discussions with Historic England, the proposed mansard floor would be an
uncomfortable addition above the retained façade and would conflict with
requirements in respect of the Conservation Area. The proposed
redevelopment even with loss of the majority of the building, and the proposals
for building a larger replacement which results in modest harm, contributes
some Conservation Area benefit in favour of the proposals given the significant
improvements to the shopping frontage. This is particularly the case given this
terrace is on the intended processional Exhibition Road route.
97. I am mindful of my statutory duty in s.728 to pay special attention to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the
Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Area. Whilst I have identified
harm, including harm to listed buildings, and particularly their settings, as set
out in the first main issue above, this is at the lower end of less than
substantial harm. Moreover, I have to consider the effect on the Thurloe
Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Area as a whole. I am of the view that
the development would include benefits as well as harms to the Conservation
Area. In many respects what is proposed seeks to reinforce the established
residential character as well as enhance the functional character of the
underground. Nonetheless, given the harms to the listed buildings which
contribute to the Conservation Area, and the modest harms to some views,
along with the demolition of the existing Bullnose and 20-34 Thurloe Street,
including loss of the shopfront at no 34, and loss of no 10 the arcade to
facilitate SFA, it follows that the Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation
Area would not be preserved or enhanced, but would be harmed. However,
this would represent less than substantial harm and be in the lower end of that
spectrum.
98. Policy CL3 of the Local Plan sets out that the Council will require development
to preserve and take opportunities to enhance the cherished and familiar local
scene, by preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the
8 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
conservation area and its setting and resisting demolition of heritage assets
(the supporting text noting this can include non-designated assets). However,
this policy, in respect of demolition accepts that public benefits might outweigh
that harm. Thus, given I have identified only a modest amount of harm to the
Conservation Area as a whole, conflict with the thrust of this policy would be
more appropriately considered once public benefits have been addressed. This
follows greater adherence to the Framework, where paragraph 202 establishes
that where less than substantial harm to heritage assets arise this should be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Heritage Benefits and Harms Summary
99. Setting aside the listed subway which I have dealt with on its own, I am
mindful that in addition to the harms, there are heritage benefits. The works
to restore the arcade are particularly beneficial and attract significant weight, in
addition the Thurloe Street shop frontage would represent a heritage benefit to
the Conservation Area. Further, redeveloping the Thurloe Square/Pelham
Street frontages has benefits in restoring the street layout. Whilst those
benefits do not outweigh the harms in the internal heritage balance, they serve
to reinforce that the totality of harm comes from relatively moderate harms in
terms of the special historic interest of South Kensington Station and the
nearby listed buildings identified in Pelham Place and Thurloe Square, and
predominantly to setting rather than fabric. There would also be harms to the
Conservation Area, but again these would be less than substantial and
demonstrably at the lower end of that scale too.
100. In this regard I also note that Historic England’s comments of 24 September
2021, whilst identifying aspects of harm throughout the application process, do
not object to the proposed development but expressed that they still had
concerns that were not fully resolved in the final amended scheme. Thus,
Historic England concluded the harm to the Conservation Area and the listed
building which is South Kensington Station would be of less than substantial
harm in the language of the Framework.
101. In all, whilst harm is identified, it is less than substantial harm and at the
lower end of the spectrum. Any harm must be afforded considerable
importance and weight and should require clear justification. However, it
should be weighed in the planning balance against the public benefits arising
from the proposal. In order to do this the wider planning benefits need setting
out and so the final heritage balance will be made later.
General Character and Appearance
102. In many respects aspects of character and appearance have, inevitably,
been considered in assessment of effects on the heritage assets set out above.
However, for completeness it is helpful to focus on the proposed development
in terms of the effect of the proposed Bullnose building on its surroundings.
Some of this is assessed in respect of the setting of the Conservation Area (as
a Framework matter rather than a statutory duty) but it is important to
acknowledge that the proposed Bullnose building would be a new addition that
would be seen at the head of the station at a key road junction.
103. I acknowledge that Local Plan Policy CL12 seeks that development should
seldom use height to express local landmarks, but it does not prohibit it. The
proposed Bullnose, which might be perceived as creating a new landmark,
would reflect nearby development height and I do not find policy conflict in
respect of Policy CL12.
104. In terms of the Thurloe Street building with its retained façade I have also
noted that objectors consider that the additional mansard floor would conflict
with Local Plan Policy CL8 which seeks to resist additional floors on existing
buildings. However, given the extent of demolition this is in many respects is a
new building. Thus, the scheme has sought an additional storey. This would
adhere with policy requirements in London Plan Policy D3 which requires best
use of land. Taking a pragmatic view therefore I do not attach weight to
conflict with Local Plan Policy CL8. However, despite some improvements to
the design following discussions with Historic England, the proposed mansard
floor would be an uncomfortable addition above the retained façade and would
conflict with requirements in respect of the Conservation Area, including when
seen from its setting, such as in views from Exhibition Road.
105. Local Plan Policy CL1 deals with matters of character and context. The
proposed development follows the grain of its surroundings and addresses
matters such as scale, height, plot width, building lines, street form, rhythm,
and, to some extent, materials as is desired by this policy. In terms of bulk,
mass, proportion, roofscape, historic fabric and views, the scheme is less
successful but nonetheless these factors have been considered and addressed
to some extent. Thus, in broad terms it responds well to its local context. In
addition, it would deliver an optimised density and a comprehensive approach
to the site. Therefore, this policy with its design-based objectives is largely,
though not wholly, satisfied.
106. Further, Local Plan Policy CL2 relates to design quality. This criterion-based
policy requires development to be functional, robust, attractive, locally
distinctive, sustainable, inclusive, and secure. Many of these objectives would
be met. The scheme is significant in its ability to deliver inclusivity but
struggles with local distinctiveness in terms of responding well to its context,
given the heritage harms identified. In terms of the architectural response to
its context it fails to completely adhere to these policy requirements for
heritage reasons and because of the lack of finesse in some of the detailing.
107. London Plan Policy D3 seeks to optimise site capacity through a design led
approach, this follows its good growth policy GG2 which seeks to make the best
use of land. Having looked at the numerous proposals for development of the
station over several decades and the iterations of the scheme before me I have
no doubt that a design-led approach has been followed. In particular, the
Council’s Architecture Appraisal Panel minutes of 10 July 2019 acknowledges
the benefits of early engagement in the design process and confirms it is in
overall terms ‘supportive of the proposed approach to mending this piece of
townscape, which has long been compromised by the Victorian rail
infrastructure’. This design based (and I acknowledge not a not heritage
group) Panel particularly supported the massing and form of both the Bullnose
building and the proposed Pelham Street development. Similarly, the London
Review Panel (also design rather than heritage based but clearly mindful of the
heritage context as expressed in its notes9) considered the scheme in response
to the Mayor’s Good Growth by Design Programme, TfL being part of the GLA
group. This Panel ‘appreciated the way proposals balance a locally sensitive
9 CDI7 Report of the London Review Panel meeting 20 May 2019.
scheme developed in a context of international relevance’. I note that
discussion occurred in a confidential context prior to submission, but
nonetheless it reflects consideration of experts acting for the Mayor in
undertaking the appraisal. Moreover, it has been developed since that time to
evolve into the scheme before me.
108. I appreciate the scheme does not reflect that developed in 2016 as a TFL
Development Brief10 in partnership with the Council and the local community.
However, it is apparent that scheme was not fully worked through to
demonstrate a deliverable development and nor was it adopted by the Council
as a Supplementary Planning Document. Although it seems to have taken
considerable effort and time, it largely demonstrates that a Basevi type design
could be drawn up for the site. However, that itself is not in doubt but would
have cost implications that are not quantified, and it does not appear to reflect
the importance of making the best use of land, even if TFL at the time
envisaged it as being used in the preparation for future development at the
station. More specifically the scheme before me is the one I have to consider,
it being the only fully worked through and detailed proposal.
109. In accordance with Policy D3 it has been demonstrated that the scheme does
respond to its context. Moreover, the scheme seeks to optimise site capacity
and deliver higher densities in this highly sustainable location. Doing so has
created a degree of tension and indeed some harm in terms of design. In
considering the criteria set out within the policy it is evident that matters of
access, street form, safety, public realm, privacy, outlook, indoor and outdoor
environments, sustainability, and design reflect the thrust of this policy. In
many respects it also attempts to utilise heritage assets and features that
contribute to the area. Nonetheless, given that harms, albeit limited, have
been found to heritage assets as set out above, full compliance with this policy
would not be achieved.
Additional Matters
(c) Noise During Construction
110. At the Inquiry TOLA pursued the issue of noise during construction works,
particularly night-time working noise. This was not a matter between other
parties. I note that the Council did not object to the proposed development on
this ground either in its consideration of the proposal at Committee or during
the Inquiry, having had regard to noise reports and its own professional
advisors.
111. In this case a raft of measures have been considered in respect of on-site
construction works, including the method of piling (auguring), acoustic barriers
and other attenuation, including acoustic sleeves. Control over construction
noise would be achieved through conditions and the s.106 Agreement.
112. The s.106 Agreement sets out the requirement for a night-time working
assessment. This requires comprehensive information and establishes
mitigation that includes an off-site mitigation and compensation policy which
would include installation of secondary double glazing, the cost of temporary
10 CDI3
relocation of ‘Relevant Occupiers’11, costs of window cleaning and blackout
blinds and fees associated with such claims. However, these provisions would
be on the basis that the priority is to mitigate to avoid such measures having to
take place.
113. At the Inquiry it was accepted by TOLA that the proposed mitigation
measures could work but that it would depend upon enforcement. There is
nothing before me that indicates enforcement of mitigation measures would not
take place were it to be necessary; rather, I am mindful this is part of the
Council’s responsibilities and there is nothing before me to indicate they would
not be fulfilled. Although there is nothing before me to suggest it would be
necessary, there are also other legislative options for the Council, through the
Control of Pollution Act as referred to in the s.106 Agreement.
114. TOLA also raised concerns regarding deliveries during the night-time period
and in particular unmitigated noise from concrete lorries. This was not raised
in TOLA’s noise consultant’s report but was an issue introduced at the Inquiry.
However, vehicular movement on a highway is a characteristic of the urban
environment and would be heard in that context. Whilst concrete lorries are
likely to be noisier than refuse or other large vehicles, they would only be
passing for short periods of time and, unlike other vehicles on the road, would
be subject the stringent conditions and requirements of the construction
management plan (CMP). Furthermore, this is not a new permanent noise, it
would be intermittent, and time-limited to the duration of related development.
115. Thus, whilst I acknowledge that night-time working is a concern for local
residents, provisions are in place within the s.106 Agreement and would be
subject of conditions to ensure adequate mitigation. With such mitigation in
place to cover the temporary period of disruption during development works
Local Plan Policy CE6, London Plan D14 and the thrust of the Framework would
be satisfied.
(d) Affordable Housing Provision and Viability Issues
116. TOLA took particular issue with the economics surrounding the viability of
the scheme. Two key areas were identified at the Inquiry as the focus of
concern: the use and floor space within the Bullnose building and the viability
of the Thurloe Street terrace.
117. In terms of the Bullnose building, floor to ceiling heights are a product of the
design of the building with its clear outward-facing expression relating to its
architectural form that is designed to reflect its surroundings and to provide a
degree of status as a place of arrival. I do not subscribe, and therefore afford
very limited weight, to the view that there is any particular likelihood of
introducing, for instance, a mezzanine level, so creating further space that
should be accounted for in the viability appraisal. Thus, it is a case that the
proposal should be judged on the basis of the scheme before me, it being of a
size and scale that has been arrived at through design review and assessment
of context wherein many, including TOLA, would not wish to see a larger/taller
scheme.
11 The s.106 Agreement defines this as any person or group of persons who are resident within the vicinity of the
land and who may be entitled to mitigation and/or compensation under the terms of the Off-Site Mitigation and
Compensation Policy
118. Turning to the potential reuse of 20-34 Thurloe Street, whilst it was
suggested that significant financial rewards could arise from simple
refurbishment of the building, that would not contribute to the wider
development objectives of creating more useable space within this building,
significantly improving its carbon footprint, or creating the SFA. Furthermore,
dealing with each main aspect of the scheme in isolation would undermine the
viability calculations for the scheme as a whole, and particular so here where
the values generated by this part of the scheme would be high.
119. The proposal before me would deliver a net increase of 29 homes, of which
17 would be affordable by being of an ‘intermediate’ type being discounted
London living rent. A local resident challenged the affordability of such rents,
and clearly, even so reduced, the rents would be beyond the reach of many
people. Despite this, I have to consider the policies requirements of the
development plan before me, rather than deal with that suggested disparity.
120. The level of ‘intermediate’ type affordable housing does not strictly adhere to
the level sought by Local Plan policy CH2 as it offers 35% by habitable room
rather than the 35% by floorspace. Moreover, it does not strictly accord with
the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Community Housing’ which
requires 70% social rent/London affordable rent and 30% intermediate tenure
rent, given that all that this scheme offers is intermediate tenure rent. Indeed,
on that basis there would be a failure to accord with London Plan policy H4.
However, the Council accepts that the affordable housing offer is ‘the maximum
reasonable level that can be delivered consistent with achieving viability and
thus the requirements of the development plan are met’. In this respect the
current scheme estimates a loss12. Even acknowledging a predicted loss in that
range, there is clear understanding that the development market is
unpredictable and the s.106 Agreement provisions ensure that should viability
improve there would be an opportunity to seek a financial contribution towards
more affordable housing following a reappraisal.
121. The 35% intermediate level housing remains a positive factor in the planning
balance, albeit the need for affordable housing provision would be a policy
requirement for any scheme and so is of modest weight in the planning
balance. However, in this case it is accepted that the ‘titled balance’
established in the Framework is engaged because of the Council’s poor Housing
Delivery Test Results, which means greater weight should be afforded to all
housing-related proposals13.
122. In terms of viability and affordable housing I am satisfied that these matters
have fully and robustly been considered by the Council as set out in its Officer
Report. Nothing, in the vast array of evidence before me, leads me to conclude
that the approach taken is unacceptable or that unjustified policy conflict would
arise as a result of this scheme. Further, arrangements with the s.106
Agreement seek to safeguard the public interest in terms of affordable housing
delivery arising from uplifts arising from development.
12 This is based on a Benchmark Land Value of £62.69M (agreed with the Council and its appointed assessor) of
some £8.56M as identified by the appellant’s calculations, which when critically assessed for the Council (reducing
construction costs and altering yields) still showed a loss of some £3M
13 As set out in the Planning Officer report to Committee, paragraphs 1.15 and 7.17 (CDJ1).
Other Matters Raised Against the Proposal
123. Additional matters were raised expressing concerns arising from the
development. These included concerns regarding increasing occupancy in an
already busy urban environment, although such an objection is at odds with
development plan policy for the Capital. They also include bin storage;
however, it is evident that the issue of concern mainly arises from waste
collection wherein refuse is collected from central locations within the public
realm on particular days. This approach to bin collection is not a matter for
control within an appeal. Rather it is simply appropriate that businesses and
dwellings have space to collect waste until collection takes place and I have no
reason to believe that this would not be adequate given the alteration to plans
of 11 January 2021, which were consulted upon, and the requirements set out
in planning condition 16.
124. Daylight, outlook, and privacy are all matters raised in respect of existing
occupiers, and a raft of appeal decisions were referred to in respect of this
matter. Those appeal decisions and my own experience leads me to conclude
that the particular circumstances in each case is the main factor in determining
the weight to be attached to any harm that might be identified.
125. In this case, daylight/sunlight studies were provided with the application;
this report identified all properties that might reasonably be affected, and
assessed residential properties within this group as they have occupiers who
are most likely to have the highest requirement for natural light and therefore
be most susceptible to changes. I am satisfied that this is a reasonable
approach even if not all properties were viewed internally. I note 39 Thurloe
Street, a mixed-use property, was not specifically identified and South
Kensington Estates express concern about this. However, as the lower floors
are in commercial use and upper floors less likely to be impacted by the
proposed development, I am satisfied that adequate assessment was made.
126. The study makes clear that 23 of 39 properties (an assessment of 635
rooms) would fully meet the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE)
guidelines. The remaining properties would see reduced levels of daylight and
sunlight. No 14-16 and 52 Thurloe Square, 29 Pelham Street would have
marginal changes that would not materially impact upon living conditions. The
greater changes, unsurprisingly, would be on Pelham Street, including Malvern
Court (No 2), where new development is proposed creating a double-sided
street. This in itself would distort the BRE guidelines in terms of Vertical Sky
Component (VSC) seen from windows. In addition to the VSC tests, No-Sky
Line (NSL) and Average Daylight Factor (ADF) tests have been undertaken.
The calculations have not been disputed, although the weight to be attributed
to any change has. However, of the Pelham Street properties many harms are
minor in terms of change assessed using the BRE guidance, or effect bedrooms
where light levels can reasonably be expected to be lower. Nonetheless, for
some windows there would be change which would be noticeable to occupiers.
However, flexibility is sought within the supporting text to Local Plan policy CL5
which itself focuses more generally on ensuring good living conditions and
seeks to avoid material worsening of conditions. In this case the changes
identified would be acceptable for this urban location, reflect the Council’s
approach to daylight/sunlight levels as set out in its Officer Report to
committee and, thus, satisfy requirements of policy CL5.
127. In terms of outlook there would be significant changes for some, particularly
on Pelham Street. However, there is no right to a view and the degree of
separation between building frontages would be acceptable, providing normal
levels of outlook in this metropolitan context. This similarly applies in respect
of separation distances for privacy wherein perceptions of being overlooked and
some loss of current privacy might arise. However, the levels remaining would
be typical of, and acceptable within, this urban environment.
128. I note that some objectors to the scheme express concern about the
independent nature of retailers both here and in the Thurloe Street buildings.
However, that is not a matter for the planning process to control and nor is the
nature of their unsecured tenancies. That said, I acknowledge the concerns
about businesses that are long-established and provide services, including the
important medical support provided by the Stickland Pharmacy to local
residents, including those in acute need and, no doubt, visitors. What can
reasonably be controlled is the size of unit and this would be done through the
s.106 Agreement and conditions. The requirement for smaller units should
ensure that a variety of retail offers are secured so as to support the needs of
the local residents.
(e) Benefits of The Scheme including s.106 Agreement Matters
129. In terms of the benefits which this proposal would bring the most important
is SFA to the District and Circular Lines. This is sought under Local Plan policy
CT1 which seeks support for the delivery of SFA at all underground stations by
2028. This must be of very significant weight, given it has not happened since
the station was conceived and, despite its importance as a destination, there is
no money earmarked for such a scheme. It is therefore not surprising that the
scheme resulted in many letters of support, including from Action Disability
Kensington and Chelsea, local residents who wrote to the Inquiry regarding
their disabled access requirements, and nearby museums and colleges,
including the Executive Director to the Exhibition Road Cultural Group, the
Chief Executive of the Royal Albert Hall, The Deputy Director of the Science
Museum, and Imperial College. A letter of support also noted that the adopted
Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Plan (which does not cover the appeal site)
contains a policy14 which seeks ‘where appropriate, proposals which contribute
to improving the capacity and efficiency of public transport systems serving the
Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Area, as well as access to them, are encouraged.
In particular this includes development that improves: a. access on routes to
Knightsbridge and South Kensington stations on the London Underground’.
Whilst that policy is not one for this appeal, it emphasises the awareness of
issues regarding access at South Kensington Station.
130. I also acknowledge the frustration of local residents and the Kensington
Society in this regard. As the Kensington Society clearly set out, TfL
recognised the need for the SCU upgrade some 15 years ago, and the Society
acknowledge that dangerous overcrowding occurs. South Kensington Station is
identified as the 4th busiest station without SFA within 800m. This, as the
Residents Associations point out, combined with Public Sector Equality Duties,
ought to mean that money should be found for SFA regardless, of this
development. Be that as it may, there is nothing before me to indicate that
any money is provided within any budget to ensure that these works go ahead.
14 KBR32
Whilst South Kensington Station was part of London Underground’s Station
Capacity Upgrade Programme, with a scheme designed and approved in 2018,
the works were paused in 2020 and have remained that way since. In this
regard the Kensington Society see it as paramount that the CSU and SFA must
be delivered as part of any development on this site. Indeed, they are clear
that this benefit would be significantly greater than provision of housing which
is much needed. The s.106 Agreement provides that this would be the case.
As such, it seems to me that the Society’s concerns in this respect (based on
Newcastle City Council v SoS for LUCH(2022] EWHC 27521 November 2022)
should be overcome through the provisions of s.106 Agreement.
131. The Inquiry heard from Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, The Director of
Estates, Projects and Masterplanning for the Natural History Museum, the
Secretary to the Royal Commission for the exhibition of 1851 and a
representative of the Exhibition Road Cultural Group about the importance of
SFA here. The importance of the station access is heightened given the huge
investments made by the Natural History Museum, as was explained to the
Inquiry, to create better access for all within the museum itself, the missing
link being that of public transport provision.
132. There was discussion at the Inquiry about Framework paragraph 206 which
says that ‘local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new
development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within
the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance’. It
goes on to clarify that ‘proposals that preserve those elements of the setting
that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its
significance) should be treated favourably’. Whilst this proposal would not alter
the fabric of the assets which comprise the large cultural and educational
institutions of Albertopolis, (which are heritage assets of the highest value), the
provision of SFA would demonstrably better reveal the significance those assets
hold, in the widest definition of that term, to a wider audience. This reinforces
my view that very significant weight should be attributed to this element of the
proposal in the very particular circumstances of this case.
133. To add to that very significant benefit, and reinforcing the importance of the
location this station serves, I am mindful that some 34 million visitors and
residents use this station every year. In fact, the capacity of this station is
frequently overwhelmed and closed simply because it cannot cope with the
volume of people seeking to use the station. This has been explained in
evidence and during my time at this Inquiry I witnessed it for myself. This is
not good for local residents and is no doubt disconcerting and frustrating for
those who are less familiar with the area. Such a situation is harmful for those
seeking to access South Kensington as a local centre and for those seeking to
access the cultural museums quarter. Thus, not only would the scheme deliver
SFA it would significantly improve the station for everyone using it because it
would bring the consented/permitted SCU to fruition. Whilst it is suggested
that implementation of this earlier scheme cannot be a benefit of this scheme,
it is apparent that the works are needed, and this scheme would ensure their
delivery as part of a wider development package. Whilst there is no guarantee
this appeal scheme will be built, should it not be built out the harms identified
would not occur and nor would this benefit. Thus, the two are clearly linked in
this scheme by the s.106 Agreement.
134. In addition to the functional benefits, and despite the heritage and design
concerns regarding parts of the scheme, it would undeniably create a sense of
place that, for the Bullnose in particular, would represent a development that
reflects its context in a largely positive way. It would create inclusive and
functional development that would be generally well designed, albeit lacking a
degree of sensitivity to its historic environment. It is also important in terms of
making effective use of land, which is clearly supported in both local policies15
and the Framework,16 and which is highly pertinent here, given that vacant
land is being left as an unattractive space in such a sustainable location and
other buildings are under-utilised. This is especially relevant in that it also
assists the delivery of new homes in a borough with housing undersupply.
Moreover, the whole scheme brings a mix of additional residential and office
accommodation and an improved quality of retail floorspace (albeit reduced in
floor area). The additional high quality commercial space in this highly
sustainable location within the South Kensington District Centre is an important
benefit as it would support economic growth, as is sought and supported by
Local Plan policy CP1 and policy CF5 in particular.
135. While local objectors are critical that the driver for the scheme is economic
that is, in part, an inevitable component of the development process. What
matters is that the scheme being sought is acceptable as a whole.
136. The scheme, whilst resulting in heritage harms, would provide heritage
benefits in terms of the refurbishment of the arcade, in terms of the SFA, and
to the shopfronts of Thurloe Street although the weight here is significantly
reduced by the façadism approach. However, as these benefits have already
reduced the overall level of harm in the heritage balance they should not be
added as a benefit here to avoid double counting.
137. The development would result in benefits associated with delivery of
affordable housing but, as already explained, this only attracts modest weight
given that this is a requirement of policy. However, I have concluded that the
heritage harms amount to less than substantial harm so do not amount in their
own right to a clear reason to refuse the development without other balances
being required. As such 11d(i) of the Framework is not engaged. Therefore,
the weight to be placed on delivery of housing is necessarily changed to one of
significant weight in its calibration by the fact that the Framework titled
balance comes into play, given the agreed housing delivery position and acute
need for all housing.
138. There would be additional benefits in terms of the development of high-
quality small retail units, although this benefit is tempered by the fact that
existing commercial operations appear to be thriving despite impacts from
significant global and national events. In addition, there would be a boost to
the local economy from development which carries moderate weight.
139. The local skills use, apprenticeships and education opportunities provided by
the scheme are a positive but also a policy requirement so attract negligible
weight.
15 London Plan GG2 Making the best use of land
16 Framework Chapter 11
S.106 Agreement
140. As referred to above, an agreement has been submitted under s.106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 between the Council, the owner and
Native Land; it is dated 11 May 2023. Planning obligations under s.106 must
meet the required tests17; that they are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, that they are directly related to the
development; and, that they are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind
to the development.
141. The planning obligation (s.106 Agreement) in respect of this scheme
provides for the following18 should the appeal be allowed:
142. Affordable housing provision of 17 units (developed as 5x 1 bed, 6x 2bed,
2x3 bed, 4x 4 bed units) will be made in the form of discounted London living
rent housing units provided by assured tenancies. There is potentially scope
for additional units should this become viable. This is to be kept within
affordable housing use unless the ‘right to buy’ is exercised by a tenant or the
unit cannot be disposed of (conditions apply) after 3 months. The
accommodation should be built to London design standards. No less than 30%
of the open market housing can be occupied until the affordable housing is
constructed and transferred to a registered provider. Service charges shall be
limited to actual costs and services for the affordable housing only and cannot
be increased unless this approved in writing by the Council. Nomination rights
for all first lettings and re-lettings is granted in perpetuity to the Council.
143. Living rents are set out and capped at Notting Dale Ward levels; for
example, at the time of drafting the s.106 Agreement 1-bed unit rent would be
currently £947.55 and a 4-bed unit £1,263.40 per month. Occupation is on the
basis of a three year tenancy, with break clauses for the tenant.
144. Parking permits will not be permitted for occupiers of the development,
and this is to be made clear to occupiers.
145. SCU and SFA - it is set out that no part of the development shall be
commenced unless it is demonstrated that sufficient funds are committed and
available to carry out and complete the SCU works and the SFA Additional
works19. That a SFA Phasing Strategy is submitted to the Director of Planning
and Place at the Council and the development shall not commence until that
SFA Phasing Strategy is approved in writing by the Council, and that
development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with that SFA
Phasing Strategy. Moreover, it precludes commencement of the Bullnose and
Thurloe Square buildings until the SCU Works and SFA Additional Works have
been practically completed and certified safe and the SFA is open for use by the
17 Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended)
18 The headline details are set out here but more detail along with definitions are contained within the s.106
Agreement
19
New step free access entrance from Thurloe Street incorporating lift waiting area; Two lift shafts including
structural foundations and lift pits between the Thurloe Street entrance and ticket hall/Subway levels; associated
waiting areas, escape staircase and safety infrastructure for lifts between the Thurloe Street entrance and ticket
hall/Subway levels; The installation of 4 separate lifts (one from ticket hall to Platform 5, one from ticket hall to
platforms 1 and 2 and two from Thurloe Street entrance to ticket hall/Subway levels; Modifications to the escape
staircase from Platform 5 to Thurloe Square (referred to in paragraph (g) of the definition of “Station Capacity
Upgrade Works”) including new staircase creating a fire escape from the island platform and forming an interchange
between Platform 5 and the island platform.
public on a day-to-day basis. Further, the Pelham Street and Thurloe Street
buildings shall not be occupied (except for the affordable housing) until the
SCU Works and SFA Additional Works have been practically completed and
certified safe and the SFA is open for use by the public on a day-to-day basis.
In essence it ensures that the SCU and SFA elements of the scheme have to be
completed and cannot be set aside for later or left out of the scheme as a
whole.
146. A construction management plan fee will be paid to the Council
(£2,800).
147. Construction phase skills and training requires submission of a plan to
train, employ and provide development opportunities for residents of the local
area, with penalties for not doing so. A contribution of £84,000 is to be
provided to support this.
148. Local procurement obligations are also established, requiring fees and a
strategy to ensure opportunities for local businesses to bid/tender for the
provision of goods and services. The fee required amounts to £8,300.
149. The carbon offset contribution of £52,896 is to be paid prior to
implementation.
150. The public art strategy requires commissioning of public art from local
artist(s).
151. The highway works agreement sets out that an agreement should be
entered into within a year of commencement (as far as is possible) to agree
the highways works for which the owner will pay.
152. The financial contributions would be made prior to the occupation of the
development. These contributions are the Air Quality Contribution (£55,290),
the End User Employment and Training Contribution (£74,352.73), the Library
Facilities Contribution (£7,585.27), the Parks and Open Spaces Contribution
(£40,676.91) and the Sport and Leisure Contributions (£30,634.27). All these
quoted sums were based on the draft and may vary but are formula-based as
set out in the final s.106 Agreement.
153. Travel plan monitoring fees are required for each Travel Plan submitted
(£1,200).
154. The ‘Be Seen’ energy monitoring requires submission of GLA ‘Be Seen’
indicators relating to energy efficiency. It requires updates to this prior to
occupation, upon completion of a year of occupation and subsequent
monitoring. It requires mitigation should underperformance occur along with
additional monitoring.
155. A night-time working impact assessment sets out the requirement to
establish which nearby properties should be consulted on the night-time
working impact assessment20. A draft night-time working impact assessment,
including the Monitoring Strategy, the Off-Site Mitigation and Compensation
Policy and the Off-Site Mitigation and Compensation Policy Publicity Plan, shall
be approved in writing by the Director of Planning and Place at the Council
20 It makes it clear that the residents of all roads/streets situated in the area bounded by Cromwell Road, Cromwell Garden,
Thurloe Place to the north, Brompton Road to the east, Fulham Road to the south and Queen’s Gate, Onslow Gardens and
Selwood Terrace to the west shall always be consulted
prior to commencement. It shall make a comprehensive assessment of the
impacts of night-time working, there shall be a monitoring strategy for night-
time noise and vibration, and details of mitigation.
156. The mitigation shall include the best practicable means to reduce noise to a
minimum, as defined in Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, being
employed at all times, that machinery shall properly maintained and silenced,
quiet site protocols and use of acoustic barriers/enclosures (including for
compressors and generators), notifications that shall be made to residents and
contacts for liaison including temporary accommodation/compensation if
required for relevant occupiers, a permitting system for weekend/public
holidays an works outside the hours of 0800-1800, including the provision of
temporary accommodation for local residents to be relocated/housed if
necessary during such periods.
157. The off-site mitigation policy to deal with the period from commencement
until practical completion for relevant occupiers shall include provisions for
secondary double glazing, temporary relocation due to night-time working,
financial compensation for additional window and other cleaning, for the
installation of black out blinds, and fees and costs for making such successful
claims. There shall be an agreed publicity policy for the agreed night-time
working strategy. The owners shall comply with and ensure contractors comply
with the approved night-time working and associated strategies.
158. A retail management strategy is to be submitted to prevent the
amalgamation of some of the retail units, to undertake local consultation on the
shops local residents need, details of how premises will be marketed and how
letting and occupation will be managed.
159. The arcade works are required to be practically complete prior to the
occupation of the Bullnose.
160. The requirements for viability reviews are set out in Schedule 3. These
include early and late-stage viability reviews. The purposes, with the
involvement of external assessors, is to establish whether a surplus is available
in order that the Council can request additional affordable housing provision.
The mechanism including timetable for doing this and for dispute resolution is
set out. A similar approach is taken to late-stage review which could result in a
financial contribution. Formulas are set out within the s.106 Agreement for
these calculations.
161. The original viability assessment is provided for in Schedule 4 which
seeks to establish an agreed viability assessment which will form the basis on
which matters will subsequently be based.
162. The s.106 Agreement also sets out definitions of terms, index linking
arrangements for fees/costs (which therefore may change from the sums
identified above), a monitoring fee (of £15,320.13) and the Council’s
covenants, including repayment of any unused monies.
163. All of the above matters are clearly related to the development proposals
and are related to adopted policies, and supplementary planning documents,
with financial calculations reflecting established formula. I am therefore
satisfied that they are acceptable. Further details are provided in the CIL
Compliance Statement and accompanying documentation.
164. For completeness, I record that the Residents Associations had sought
additional matters for the s.106 Agreement, including scope for access
connections to the Piccadilly line, better protection for existing independent
retailers within shop units that will be redeveloped and a Changing Places toilet
for those with disabilities. The first would not be reasonably connected to this
scheme and third is not sufficient to dismiss this appeal for the around station
development although consideration of this matter would be prudent. I have
already dealt with matters relating to tenancy.
Conditions
165. The conditions put forward for this scheme were amended and added to
during the course of the application and appeal process. I have amended them
where minor typographical and other minor errors occur. The two new
shopfront openings in the subway are refused for reasons set out above
however as the plans cannot be readily separated out I have imposed
conditions to clarify this matter.
166. In addition to the standard time conditions for each permission the following
conditions are necessary and meet all tests for conditions. Planning permission
conditions set out the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and to accord
with the Act. Greater detail is required for Thurloe Street, the Bullnose, Pelham
Street and Thurloe Square given the sensitivity of the environment and to
ensure compliance with Local Plan policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL4.
167. Through conditions Use Class restrictions are imposed on the Pelham Street
and Bullnose Commercial uses to protect the vitality and viability of the
commercial area and in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of
nearby residential properties. This ensures compliance with policies CF1, CF2,
and CF5 of the Local Plan (and in respect of the Bullnose polices CR7 and CL5).
Restrictions are imposed on the amalgamation of commercial units in the
Pelham and Thurloe Street developments for the same reasons and in accord
with Local Plan policies CF1, CF2 and CL5.
168. Conditions are required to secure the following matters. Cycle storage which
is necessary to support sustainable transport in line with Local Plan policy CT1.
The Thurloe Square Emergency Access should be restricted to emergency use
in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety reflecting
requirements of Local Plan policies CT1 and CL5. A Construction Management
Plan is also required for the same reasons. This needs to be a pre-
commencement condition to prevent harm to living conditions and is supported
by Local Plan policies CL5, CL7 and CT1 as well as SPD guidance. A Travel Plan
is required to encourage sustainable transport choices in accordance with Local
Plan policy CT1. A Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is required in the
interests of highway safety and residential amenity as sought by Local Plan
policies CR7, CT1 and CL5. The Kensington Society sought that this condition
included the following text: ‘The Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall
include appropriate targets for continuous improvement, provide for continuous
monitoring, and provide for the outcome of the monitoring to be reported
annually to the local planning authority and made publicly available’. I do not
consider this to be necessary as the Delivery and Servicing Management Plan
should include these, however, I record it here for the benefit of the Council
who will be responsible for approving the Plan. A Refuse and Recycling
Strategy is also required in the interests of residential amenity according with
Local Plan policies CL5 and CE5.
169. In order to ensure best working practices and site safety given the particular
circumstances of this site, the following pre-commencement conditions are
required in accordance with Local Plan policies CL5, CL7, CT1, CE5, CE6 (as
may be appropriate to the condition) and SPD guidance: Code of Construction
Management Plan, Code of Construction Practice, Considerate Constructors
Scheme, Professional Management of Engineering Works.
170. A condition is required in respect of emergency diesel generators to be able
to ensure a response to air quality considerations in the event such generators
are necessary (London Plan SI1, Local Plan CE5). Conditions are required in
respect of a Ventilation Strategy and compliance with it. This condition is
necessary to comply with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy SI1 of the
London Plan, and policy CE5 of the Local Plan 2019 in ensuring that impact
upon air quality in the area is minimised, in accordance with the London
Councils 'Air Quality and Planning Guidance’ recommended format. As the
Kensington Society note, there should also be compliance with the relevant
Building Regulations in place at the time the development takes place.
171. Conditions in respect of a Dust and Air Quality Monitoring Plan, and control
over Non-Road Mobile Machinery are required in the interests of environmental
quality and residential amenity. Local Plan policy CE5 applies to them all but
they also are sought under other London Plan policies (D6, SI1, SI2, SI4 as
may be relevant to the condition) and with the London Councils 'Air Quality and
Planning Guidance' recommended format. The Kensington Society sought that
this plan covers demolition as well as development, however the DEMP shall
deal with this matter so it need not be duplicated.
172. In addition, both a Demolition Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) and
a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) are reasonably sought
by condition to protect the local environment in accordance with Local Plan
policies CE3, CE5, CE6 and CL5. It is necessary that these are pre-
commencement conditions.
173. Conditions are required in respect of noise from building services plant and
vents, anti-vibration mounts for air conditioning and extraction equipment,
sound insulation (façade construction) sound insulation between commercial
uses and dwellings, to establish and control re-radiated noise limits and
mitigation, and vibration doses. These are all needed to protect residential and
environmental amenity and are in accord with Local Plan policy CL5.
174. Conditions are required to deal with any land contamination, both identifying
(pre-commencement investigation) remedying it and verifying it as well as
dealing with unexpected contamination. This is necessary for environmental
protection in accord with Local Plan policy CE7.
175. Energy performance conditions are sought for both dwellings and
commercial properties to ensure that development contributes to sustainable
development objectives in accordance with Local Plan policy CE1 and London
Plan SI2. Although the Kensington Society suggested amendments to these
conditions, I am satisfied that as proposed they meet the requirement of the
relevant planning policies. Building Regulations will need to be adhered to as
far as they are relevant at the time.
176. In order to ensure satisfactory drainage a Sustainable Urban Drainage
System condition is required reflecting Local Plan policy CE2. A condition is
also required in respect of accessible and adaptable dwellings to meet housing
needs in accordance with Local Plan policy CH2 and London Plan policy D7.
177. Tree and landscaping conditions, including for protection of exiting trees, are
necessary in the interests of the ecology of the local environment, as are bird
and bat boxes (Local Plan policy CR6 – planting and CE4 for bird and bat
boxes). Water efficiency measures are sought, again through condition, to
ensure sustainable development in accordance with policy SI5 of the London
Plan.
178. Conditions are required to require an undercroft improvement scheme,
retention and reuse of the shopfront at 34 Thurloe Street and retention,
restoration and re-use of the shopfront at 36 Thurloe Street are all sought in
the architectural interests of the scheme to maintain and improve the heritage
townscape. These all accord with Local Plan policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL4.
179. Before the above ground works commence measures to minimise the risk of
crime and meet security needs, secured by condition, shall be approved and
subsequently implemented in order to meet Secured By Design objectives in
the interests of community safety and crime prevention in accordance with
Local Plan policy CL2 and London Plan policy D11.
180. A green roofs condition is also sought to assist in greening the urban
environment and in the interests of local visual amenity. This accords with
London Plan policies G1 and G5.
181. Turning to the listed building consent, in addition to the time condition, the
conditions sought are as follows. Submission of details in respect of works to
the Bullnose, Pelham Street and Thurloe Square in order to safeguard the
special architectural and/or historic interest and heritage significance of the
buildings involved and to comply with policy CL4 of the 2019 Local Plan.
Notification of the commencement of works is necessary in order that the Local
Planning Authority may be given the opportunity of monitoring the progress of
works on site to ensure there is no harm to the special architectural or historic
interest and heritage significance of the buildings/structures involved. The
Council notes additionally that a Council Officer may arrive to inspect the works
at any time to ensure that the extent of works permitted by the listed building
consent is not being exceeded.
182. Details of the subway works (noting that consent is not granted for works to
create two new shopfronts) are also required to be submitted in order to
safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest and heritage
significance of the building and to comply with policy CL4 of the 2019 Local
Plan. For the same policy reason it is necessary to provide access for
photographic recording and archiving, and matching materials are required for
works.
183. In terms of specific elements of the proposed works, secured through
conditions, a scheme in respect of the undercroft improvement and the
retention and restoration and re-use of 36 Thurloe Street are also required to
safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest and heritage
significance of the building and to comply with policies CL1, CL2, CL3 and CL4
of the 2019 Local Plan.
Overall Planning Balance (including Heritage Balance)
184. Policy CO5 of the Local Plan is an overarching strategic objective for
renewing the legacy which the Council has inherited, so that it passes on to the
next generation a borough that is better than today, of the highest quality and
inclusive for all, by taking great care to maintain, conserve and enhance the
glorious built heritage that has been inherited and to ensure that where new
development takes place it enhances the borough. This is thought-provoking,
and to some extent encapsulates the complexity and tensions found in this
proposal; a clear desire to preserve a rich valuable heritage but also to make it
more inclusive.
185. It is evident from my reasoning and conclusions set out above that there are
conflicts with some policies within the development plan but there is also
accord with other significant policy objectives.
186. In this case it is clear that, despite the moral desire to deliver SFA, there is
no financial support available to deliver improvements to the public transport
network which would facilitate SFA at South Kensington Station. Such SFA is
now being proposed in this scheme and because of the s.106 Agreement that
part of the scheme would have to be implemented and could not be set aside -
the additional housing, commercial and retail development in this scheme could
not be implemented without the SFA and SCU. SFA would mean that for the
first time those with disabilities, infirmity or using pushchairs with children, and
those who might accompanying them, could readily access the internationally
important museums of Albertopolis and other institutions of learning from the
London Underground. Given how important the collective asset which the
museums and learned institutions are, and the limitations arising from the lack
of SFA in this case, the scheme would materially help to better reveal those
assets and therefore, as most parties to the appeal agree, amounts to a
heritage benefit of some magnitude (and one uncounted to this point).
187. I have found that there would be an overall harm to designated heritage
assets, despite development/works which would be heritage benefits,
particularly in terms of shopfront reinstatements and re-establishment of street
pattern and enclosure of the Thurloe Square corner. In many respects the
design has been well executed in terms of its sense of place, with the harms
being as a consequence of the particular heritage sensitivities, predominantly
in terms of setting, but also in terms of original shop front loss (and here I note
that the harm to the subway is avoided by refusal of that part of the scheme).
188. I acknowledge that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource which
should be afforded considerable importance and weight. In this case the loss
of statutorily designated asset fabric that results in heritage harms is
predominantly linked to works to provide the SFA and is justified. The harms
to setting would be less than substantial and towards to the lower end of the
spectrum of harm. In this case the substantial heritage benefit of better
revealing the heritage assets, which include the whole of this internationally
renowned cultural quarter, the Conservation Area and its highly graded
designated assets, by providing SFA from the key proximate point of arrival by
London Underground, in my view, clearly tips the internal heritage balance in
favour of development.
189. This is a case where, given the housing land supply situation, the relevant
policies of the development plan are deemed to be out-of-date. However, the
thrust of many policies which come into play in these appeals relate to heritage
matters which reflect statutory duties are so can be afforded weight. That said,
in this case, because of the housing situation, the Framework seeks that
planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed
against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
190. In addition to the main matters addressed, other harms raised have been
considered; the effects on existing residential occupiers in terms of daylight
and sunlight which would be limited so as not to be determinative in this case;
and harms that would be mitigated or resolved by conditions and/or the s.106
Agreement (including noise during construction, bin storage and traffic
management). As such, those harms are of very limited weight in the planning
balance. There would be other benefits in terms of boosts to the local economy
including provision of high-quality office space. Given the housing delivery
situation, substantial benefits of additional housing, including affordable
housing also exist. Moreover, the scheme as a whole would offer substantial
public benefits as a result of SFA delivery and SCU over and above the heritage
benefits of the SFA in better revealing heritage assets identified, because it
would simply allow for the proper functioning of this underground station.
Therefore, subject to the s.106 Agreement and conditions, planning
permission, and the accompanying listed building consent, should be allowed,
as the harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
191. On a similar basis, and notwithstanding the fact that the ‘relevant’ policies
are deemed to be out of date, I conclude that, despite the conflict with the
heritage policies identified, the balance, for the reasons set out, is that the
development would accord with the policies of development plan when read as
a whole.
192. Moreover, even if the SFA’s role in better revealing the heritage assets is not
accounted for in the internal heritage balance, and is simply assessed as a
public benefit in the final planning balance, its importance is such that it should
be afforded very substantial weight which would outweigh the heritage harms
which I have found to be at the lower end of the less than substantial part of
the heritage harm spectrum. On that basis there are compelling reasons to
justify allowing these appeals in conflict with some policies of the development
plan even if its policies were not deemed out of date. Thus, whichever way the
weight is apportioned to SFA in this case, I find the totality of harms would not
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
Conclusions
193. For the reasons set out, having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude
that the appeals should be dismissed insofar as they relate to works to create
two shopfronts in the subway and allowed in terms of the remainder of the
proposed development and works.
ZHR Hill
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Russell Harris KC
He called:
Tracey Mellor BA(Hons)Arch, Dip Arch, RIBA – Senior Partner, RSHP
Professor Robert Tavernor BA, DipArch,PhD, RIBA – Founding Director,
Tavernor Consultancy Ltd
Alice Eggling BSc(Hons), MA, MSC, MRTPI, IHBC – Senior Associate, Alan
Baxter Ltd
Chris Goddard BA(Hons), BPL, MRTPI, MRICS – Board Director DP9 Ltd
Conditions/s.106 Agreement: Like Emmerton BA(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI;
Martin Teodorczyk BSc(Hons), MRICS; Tim Smith LLB
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Douglas Edwards KC
He called:
Michael Lowndes BA(Hons), DipTP, MSc, DipCons(AA), MRTPI, - Senior
Director Lichfields
Aaron Lau BA(Hons), MA – Principal Planner RBKC
Conditions/s.106 Agreement: Martin Lomas MA BA(Hons); Lorna Bowry LLB
MCMI
FOR THE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS (Pelham Street Residents’ Association,
Pelham Residents’ Associations, The Onslow Neighbourhood Association):
Jake Thorold Counsel
Assisted by Anthony McNamee – Senior Associate of Farrer & Co
He called:
Robert Ward-Booth BSC(Hons), MRICS, DipBldgCon, IHBC
Paul Velluet BA(Hons), B.Arch, M.Litt, RIBA, IHBC
FOR THE BROMPTON ASSOCIATION:
Daniel Stedman Jones Counsel
He called:
Sophie Andreae
FOR THE KENSINGTON SOCIETY:
Horatio Waller Counsel
Mr Waller had no witnesses but was there to support the Kensington
Society Case with Mrs Frame and Mr Bach
FOR TOLA:
Jaques Cesar – acting as Advocate and Witness
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Felicity Buchan the MP for Kensington and GLA Member
Cllr Sof McVeigh (Ward Councillor)
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson DBE DL
Benedict Dewfield-Oakley - SAVE Britain’s Heritage
Keith Jennings - Director of Estates, Projects and Masterplanning for the Natural
History Museum
Mr John Lavery - Secretary to the Royal Commission for the exhibition of 1851 and
representative of the Exhibition Road Cultural Group
Caryl Harris - South Kensington and Queensgate Residents Association
Philip Blackwell – South Kensington Books
Rupal Patel MRPharmS - Stickland Pharmacy (Statement read on behalf of Amish
and Rupal Patel)
Jonathan Keighley
Susan Wolfe
Jane Bridgeman
Mr T Reynolds - manager the Medici Gallery
Mr Iain Smith
Rosemary Baird
Juliet Cline
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
ID1 Appellants’ Team and Witnesses
ID2 Local Planning Authority Team and Witnesses
ID3 The 3 Residents Associations Team and Witnesses
ID4 Opening Submissions for the Appellants
ID5 Opening Submissions for the Local Planning Authority
ID6 Opening Submissions for the Brompton Association
ID7 Opening Submissions for The 3 Residents Associations
ID8 Opening Submissions for the Kensington Society
ID9 Opening Submissions for TOLA
ID10 Notification and Publication Documents for the Appeal
ID11 Memorandum in respect of the Extension to the Chelsea
and Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Areas
dated 3 May 1990 and accompanying documents with 2
plans (submitted as a bundle)
ID12 Email exchange from Mr Cesar between Cllr Kemahli and
Susanna Trostdorf dated 16 January 2003 regarding
infrastructure funding
ID13 Notes from Mr Cesar to attach to Map for Initial Site Visit
ID14 Documents List for Examination in Chief of Mr Lowndes
ID15 South Kensington station TfL Document (dates from
2015)
ID16 Draft Conditions
ID17 Draft s.106 Agreement
ID18 ID17 but showing tracked changes
ID19 Extract from The Survey of London
ID20 Declaration – Paul Velluet
ID21 Elevation Correction to page 25 of Appendix
ID22 Kensington Society Speaking Note
ID23 Updated Kensington Society Speaking Note
ID24 Speaker’s Statement Benedict Dewfield-Oakley SAVE
Britain’s Heritage
ID25 Speaker’s Statement Susan Wolfe
ID26 Speaker’s Statement Cllr Sof McVeigh (Ward Councillor)
ID27 Speaker’s Statement Rupal Patel Stickland Pharmacy with
attachments
ID28 Speaker’s Statement Jane Bridgeman
ID29 Speaker’s Statement Keith Jennings Director of Estates,
Projects and Masterplanning – Natural History Museum
ID30 Speaker’s Statement – Secretary to the Royal
Commission for the exhibition of 1851 and representative
of the Exhibition Road Cultural Group
ID31 Speaker’s Statement Caryl Harris South Kensington and
Queensgate Residents Association
ID32 Speaker’s Statement Mr T Reynolds
ID33 Draft s.106 Agreement Extract (Section 12) Night-time
Working Impact Assessment and draft s.106 Agreement
ID34 Note from Mr Caesar (TOLA)
ID35 Speaker’s Statement of Felicity Buchan the MP for
Kensington and GLA Member
ID36 Updated Draft s.106 Agreement
ID37 Statement of Common Ground
ID38 RBSK Note to the Inquiry – Contributions to Step Free
Access at South Kensington Underground Station
ID39 Statement of Baroness Grey-Thompson
ID40 Revised Draft Conditions plus additional single condition
sheet
ID41 Suggested Condition Changes -Kensington Society
ID42 Closing Statement Mr Jonathan Keighley
ID43 Closing Statement Mr Philip Blackwell
ID44 Kensington Society Closing Submissions
ID45 Closing Submissions of the Brompton Association
ID46 Closing Submissions of the Residents Association
ID47 TOLA Closing Submissions
ID48 The Council’s Closing Submissions
ID49 The Appellant’s Closing Submissions
ID50 Finalised s.106 Agreement 11 May 2023
Planning Conditions APP/K5600/W/22/3300872
1. Time Limit
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
three years from the date of this permission.
2. Compliance with approved drawings
The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with
the details shown on submitted plans subject to omissions required by the spilt
decision and except where required by conditions of this permission. The plans
hereby approved are as set out in the plans schedule attached as Annex A.
3. Submission of details – Thurloe Street
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development as identified in
subsections a to h below of the Thurloe Street part of the scheme, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be completed otherwise
than in accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational and section drawings showing details and distribution of
external facing materials and identifying retained fabric (which shall include
details of hit and miss brickwork) at a scale of 1:20;
b) Detailed elevations and sectional drawings of external windows and doors at
a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of the mansard roof level;
d) Detailed elevation and section drawings of shopfronts at 1:20;
e) Signage strategy for the Thurloe Street shops;
f) Detailed elevations, plans and section drawings of the Step Free Access
lobby at a scale of 1:20;
g) Detailed elevations, plans and section drawings of all external plant and PV
units including screening required at a scale of 1:20;
h) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site, until
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The sample panel(s) shall include
all of the external facing materials.
4. Submission of details – the Bullnose
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development as identified in
subsections a to f below of the Bullnose part of the scheme, full particulars of
the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the development shall not be completed otherwise than
in accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of shopfronts at 1:20;
d) Signage strategy for the Bullnose shops;
e) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including screening
required
f) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for
inspection of all external facing materials.
5. Submission of details – Pelham Street
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development as identified in
subsections a to f below of the Pelham Street part of the scheme, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority and the development shall not be completed otherwise
than in accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of shopfronts at 1:20;
d) Signage strategy for the Pelham Street shops;
e) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including screening
required
f) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for inspection
of all external facing materials.
6. Submission of details Thurloe Square
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development as identified in
subsections a to e below of the Thurloe Square part of the scheme, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the development shall not be completed otherwise
than in accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of South Kensington Underground Station Emergency Exit,
including any stairs and doors;
d) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including screening
required
e) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for inspection
of all external facing materials.
7. Use Class Restriction – Pelham Street Commercial
The five commercial units at ground floor level on Pelham Street forming the
subject of this permission, as identified on approved drawing RSHP-A-01300-P-
00 Rev P2 as being used for Retail, shall be used only for retail use (being the
uses previously falling within Use Class A1 and A2), and for no other
purpose(s) including any other purpose within Use Class E of the Town and
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision
equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting
that Order with or without modification.
8. Use Class Restriction – the Bullnose Commercial
The floorspace at First Floor, Second Floor, and Third Floor within the 'Bullnose'
building forming the subject of this permission, as identified on approved
drawings RSHP-A-01510-P-01 Rev P2, RSHP-A-01520-P-02 Rev P2, and RSHP-
A-01530-P-03 Rev P2, as being used for Office, shall be used only for Office
use (being the use previously falling with Use Class B1), and for no other
purpose(s) including any other purpose within Use Class E of the Town and
Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, or in any provision
equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting
that Order with or without modification.
9. Restriction on Amalgamation – Pelham Street Commercial
The five commercial units at ground floor level on Pelham Street forming the
subject of this permission, as identified on approved drawing RSHP-A-01300-P-
00 Rev P2 as being used for Retail, shall not at any time be amalgamated and
shall form five separate retail units only at the sizes shown on the approved
drawings.
10.Restriction on Amalgamation – Thurloe Street Commercial
The six commercial units [“the original units”] at ground floor level on Thurloe
Street (numbers 20, 22, 24, 26, 30 and 32 Thurloe Street) identified on
approved drawing RSHP-A-01200-P-00 Rev P1 as being used for Retail:
(a) shall not be amalgamated to form less than three units in total; and
(b) in any event, no more than two of the original units shall be
amalgamated to form one retail unit.
11. Provision of cycle storage prior to occupation
Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of each building, details
of the cycle storage facilities for the relevant building, including the storage and
the allocation of the spaces to each use shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle storage shall only
be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings, shall be provided
prior to occupation of the relevant part of the development, and shall thereafter
be retained and maintained for that use at all times.
12. Thurloe Square Emergency Exit
The emergency exit from the eastern end of South Kensington Underground
Station onto Thurloe Square shall at no time be used except in the event of an
emergency.
13. Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
Prior to commencement of each building (South Kensington Underground
Station (excluding the station Arcade), Thurloe Street, Bullnose (including the
station Arcade), Pelham Street and Thurloe Square) a Construction Traffic
Management Plan for the relevant building shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The statement should include:
a) routeing of demolition, excavation and construction vehicles, including a
response to existing or known projected major building works at other sites
in the vicinity and local works in the highway;
b) access arrangements to the site;
c) the estimated number and type of vehicles per day/week;
d) details of any vehicle holding area;
e) details of the vehicle call up and scheduling procedures;
f) estimates for the number and type of parking suspensions that will be
required;
g) details of any diversion or other disruption to the public highway during
preparation, demolition, excavation and construction work associated with
the development;
h) work programme and/or timescale for each phase of preparation, demolition,
excavation and construction work associated with the development;
i) details of measures to protect pedestrians and other highway users from
construction activities on the highway; and
j) where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be
submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of
hoarding, position of nearby trees in the highway or adjacent gardens,
pedestrian routes, parking bay suspensions and remaining road width for
vehicle movements.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
Construction Traffic Management Plan. A one-page summary of the
requirements of the approved CTMP shall be affixed to the frontage of the site
for the duration of the works at a location where it can be read by members of
the public.
14. Travel Plan – Details
Prior to the occupation of each building, a travel plan for that building shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority with
details relating to both the commercial and residential uses. The travel plan
shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with any targets within the
plan, and such record made available upon request by the Local Planning
Authority.
15. Delivery and Servicing Management Plan
Prior to the occupation of each building, a final Delivery and Servicing
Management Plan (including hours of servicing) for that building shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out and occupied in accordance with the details
approved, and so adhered to thereafter.
16. Refuse and Recycling Strategy
Prior to the occupation of each building, a refuse and recycling strategy for that
building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The strategy shall include final details of all storage facilities and the
strategy for collection of refuse and recycling for both the residential and
commercial uses. The building shall not be occupied until the storage is
available and measures outlined in the strategy are in place, and the facilities
shall thereafter be retained for that use at all times.
17. Code of Construction Practice
Prior to commencement of each part of the development (South Kensington
Underground Station (excluding the station Arcade), Thurloe Street, Bullnose
(including the station Arcade), Pelham Street and Thurloe Square):
a) An Appendix A Checklist and Site Construction Management Plan (SCMP) for
the relevant part of the development shall have both been submitted to, and
approved in writing, by the Council’s Construction Management Team, and
then
b) Copies of the approved Checklist and Plan, and their written approval, shall
have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to be placed on the
property record.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Appendix A
Checklist and SCMP so approved, or in accordance with a subsequent Checklist
or SCMP as may be approved under this condition.
18. Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS)
No development shall commence on the relevant part of the site until such time
as the lead contractor, or the site, is signed to the Considerate Constructors
Scheme (CCS) and its published Code of Considerate Practice, and the details
of (i) the membership, (ii) contact details, (iii) working hours as stipulated
under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and (iv) Certificate of Compliance, are
clearly displayed on the relevant part of site so that they can be easily read by
passing members of the public, and shall thereafter be retained on display
throughout the duration of the works forming the subject of this permission.
19. Professional Management of Engineering Works
No development of the relevant part of the site shall commence (save for site
clearance and enabling works) until:
(a) a Chartered Civil Engineer (MICE) or Chartered Structural Engineer (MI
Struct.E) has been appointed for the duration of building works and their
appointment confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority, and
(b) the name, and contact details of the person supervising engineering and
construction on the relevant part of the site for the duration of building works
have been confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority.
In the event that either the Appointed Engineer or Appointed Supervisor cease
to perform that role for whatever reason before the construction works are
completed, those works shall cease until a replacement-chartered engineer of
the afore-described qualification or replacement supervisor has been appointed
to supervise their completion and their appointment confirmed in writing to the
Local Planning Authority. At no time shall any construction work take place
unless an engineer and supervisor are at that time currently appointed and
their appointment has been notified to the Local Planning Authority in
accordance with this condition.
20. Emergency Diesel Generators
a) Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of the relevant
buildings, details of emission certificates and the results of the NOx
emissions testing of any Emergency Diesel Generator plant shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The
details should include the number, generator specification sheets, the
associated NOx emissions, details of routine testing, efflux velocity and
location/height of the exit flue.
b) Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of the relevant
buildings, details demonstrating that any Emergency Diesel Generator Plant
and associated abatement technologies shall meet a minimum dry NOx
emission standard of 95 mg/Nm-3 (at 5% O2) respectively by an accredited
laboratory shall be provided following installation and thereafter on an
annual basis to verify compliance of the relevant emissions standards.
Where any combustion plant does not meet the relevant emission standards
stated above, it should not be operated without the fitting of suitable
secondary NOx abatement equipment/technology as determined by a
specialist to ensure comparable emissions.
c) Prior to occupation of the relevant part of the development the approved
system shall be installed and be operational. Details to demonstrate where
secondary abatement is used for any Emergency Diesel Generator the
relevant emissions standards in Part B are met within 10 minutes of the
generator commencing operation. During the operation of the emergency
diesel generators there must be no persistent visible emission. The
maintenance and cleaning of the systems shall be undertaken regularly in
accordance with manufacturer specifications. The diesel fuelled generators
shall only be used for a maximum of 48 hours when there is a sustained
interruption in mains power supply to the site, and the testing shall not
exceed a maximum of 12 hours per calendar year.
21. Ventilation Strategy
Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of the relevant
residential building, a Ventilation Strategy report for that building shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in order
to mitigate air pollution. The assessment should be supported with
dispersion modelling to predict façade concentrations at sensitive receptor
locations and specific ventilation requirements to ensure that the national Air
Quality Objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10
and PM2.5) are not exceeded at receptor locations. The Ventilation Strategy
report should include the following information:
a) Details and locations of the air intake locations;
b) Details and locations for Habitable Rooms (Bedrooms, Living Rooms) where
non-openable windows can be used for ventilation other than short term
purge;
c) Details and locations of ventilation extracts to demonstrate that they are
located a minimum of 2 metres away from the fresh air ventilation intakes,
openable windows, balconies, roof gardens, terraces;
d) If part (a) is not implemented details of the mechanical ventilation system
with Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10) filtration
at air intakes where there is an exceedance of the relevant air quality
objectives shall be provided. The filtration system shall have a minimum
efficiency of 75% in the removal of Nitrogen Oxides/Dioxides, Particulate
Matter (PM2.5, PM10) in accordance with BS EN ISO 10121-1:2014 and BS
EN ISO 16890:2016.
The whole system shall be designed to prevent summer overheating and
minimise energy usage. The maintenance and cleaning of the systems shall
be undertaken regularly in accordance with manufacturer specifications and
shall be the responsibility of the primary owner of the property. Approved
details shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation/use of the
development and thereafter permanently retained and maintained.
22. Ventilation Strategy (Compliance)
Prior to occupation of the relevant part of the development, details of a post-
installation report of the approved ventilation strategy (as secured by Condition
21) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Should remedial or additional works be required to achieve the
necessary air quality levels they should be set out for the written approval of
the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented
prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained
and maintained.
23. Dust and Air Quality Monitoring Plan
Prior to commencement of each part of the development a site-specific Dust
and Air Quality Monitoring Plan for the relevant part shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include Air
Quality Monitoring of NO2 and PM and used to prevent levels exceedances of
the agreed site threshold trigger level for PM10 concentrations - 150 µg/m-3.
The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details within
the Plan thereby approved.
24. Non-Road Mobile Machinery
All Non-road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) used during the course of the
development that is within the scope of the GLA ‘Control of Dust and Emissions
during Construction and Demolition’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)
dated July 2014, or any successor document, shall comply with the emissions
requirements therein.
25. Demolition Environmental Management Plan (DEMP)
Prior to commencement of demolition of each building (South Kensington
Underground Station (excluding the station Arcade), Thurloe Street, Bullnose
(including the station Arcade), Pelham Street and Thurloe Square) a Demolition
Environmental Management Plan for each building shall submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The DEMP for each
building shall include the cumulative impact from each part of the development
under construction concurrently. The development shall be carried out only in
accordance with the Plan so approved.
26. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
Prior to commencement of development of each building (South Kensington
Underground Station (excluding the station Arcade), Thurloe Street, Bullnose
(including the station Arcade), Pelham Street and Thurloe Square) a site-
specific Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP for each
building shall include the cumulative impact from each part of the development
under construction concurrently. The development shall be carried out only in
accordance with the Plan so approved.
27. Noise from Building Service Plant and Vents
Noise emitted by all building services plant and vents shall not exceed a level
10dBA below the existing lowest LA90(10min) background noise level at any
time when the plant is operating, and where the source is tonal it shall not
exceed a level 15dBA below. The noise emitted shall be measured or predicted
at 1.0m from the facade of the nearest neighbouring residential premises or at
1.2m above any adjacent neighbouring residential garden, terrace, balcony or
patio. The plant shall be serviced regularly in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions and as necessary to ensure that the requirements of
the condition are maintained. If at any time the plant is determined by the
Local Planning Authority to be failing to comply with this condition, it shall be
switched off upon written instruction from the Local Planning Authority and not
used again until it is able to comply.
28. Anti-vibration Mounts for Air-conditioning/Extraction Equipment
All plant and equipment, including that associated with lifts, shall not operate
unless it is supported on adequate proprietary anti-vibration mounts to prevent
the structural transmission of vibration and regenerated noise within adjacent
or adjoining premises, and these shall be so retained thereafter.
29. Sound Insulation – Façade Construction
Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of each residential
building, details of the facade construction, including glazing, with
commensurate composite sound insulation performance predictions, and which
demonstrate that noise levels within habitable rooms shall comply with the
recommendations of BS8233: 2014 (or any subsequent updated British
Standard) Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings', shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
30. Sound Insulation Between Commercial Uses and Dwellings
Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure of each relevant
building, a scheme of sound insulation designed to prevent the transmission of
excessive airborne and impact noise between the commercial floorspace and
residential dwellings in the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall limit noise intrusion
such that it does not exceed 15 dB LAeq(5 minutes) at any time. The sound
insulation shall be installed and maintained only in accordance with the details
so approved. None of the approved dwellings shall be occupied until the
approved insulation scheme has been fully implemented.
31. Re- Radiated Noise Limits and Mitigation
Re-radiated noise, as a result of vibration affecting the development, should not
exceed 35dBLAmax(s) mean-plus-one standard deviation within the proposed
residential dwellings. Where it is predicted that noise from this source will
exceed the above limit then proposals to mitigate re-radiated noise to
acceptable levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
32. Vibration Dose Values
Vibration Dose Values (VDV’s), as defined in BS 6472:2008 shall not exceed
those of Table 1 of BS 6472:2008 for ‘low probability of adverse comment’. The
measured or calculated VDV’s, generated as a result of vibration affecting the
site shall be adjusted as necessary to allow for transfer functions from the
ground to the foundations and to upper floors of the proposed development.
Where it is predicted that VDV's will exceed the values of Table 1 of BS
6472:2008 for ‘low probability of adverse comment’ then proposals to mitigate
VDV's to acceptable levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the residential dwellings. The
development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details so
approved.
33. Contamination – Site Investigation Scheme
No development shall commence until a Proposed Intrusive Site Investigation
Design for the site and surrounding area are submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Proposed Intrusive Site
Investigation Design shall be prepared in accordance with the Environment
Agency’s current Land Contamination Risk Management Guidance and the
Council’s guidance or any subsequent updates.
34. Contamination – Preliminary Risk Assessment Report and Proposed Site
Investigation
No development shall commence (except for site clearance and enabling works
undertaken at ground level) until the approved Proposed Intrusive Site
Investigation Design has been fully implemented and a report including full
details of the intrusive site investigation, Risk Assessment, an Options Appraisal
and a Remediation Strategy has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the Local Planning Authority [The intrusive site investigation, Risk Assessment,
Options Appraisal, Remediation Strategy and any associated reporting shall be
undertaken in line with the Environment Agency’s current Land Contamination
Risk Management Guidance and the Council’s guidance or any subsequent
updates].
35. Contamination – Verification Report
Prior to occupation of the relevant part of the development the approved
Remediation Strategy shall be implemented in full, and a Verification Report
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The Verification Report shall include full details of requirements for ongoing
monitoring and maintenance and be prepared in line with the Environment
Agency’s current Land Contamination Risk Management Guidance and the
Council’s guidance or any subsequent updates. Ongoing monitoring and
maintenance shall be implemented in line with the approved Verification Report.
36. Contamination – Unexpected
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be
present at the site, development work shall cease and not be recommenced
until a report indicating the nature of the contamination and how it is to be
dealt with has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full.
37. Energy Performance – Residential
The development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted SWECO
Energy Strategy dated March 2020, demonstrating how the residential part of
the development will follow the hierarchy of energy efficiency, decentralised
energy and renewable energy technologies to secure the reduction in CO2
emissions beyond the baseline of Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 as
outlined in the strategy. Prior to occupation of the relevant part of the
development, evidence shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to
demonstrate that the development has been carried out in accordance with the
approved Energy Strategy and demonstrating the percentage reduction in CO2
emissions beyond the baseline.
38. Energy Performance
The development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted SWECO
Energy Strategy dated March 2020, demonstrating how the commercial part of
the development will follow the hierarchy of energy efficiency, decentralised
energy and renewable energy technologies to secure the reduction in CO2
emissions beyond the baseline of Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 as
outlined in the strategy. Prior to occupation of the relevant part of the
development, evidence shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to
demonstrate that the development has been carried out in accordance with the
approved Energy Strategy and demonstrating the percentage reduction in CO2
emissions beyond the baseline.
39. Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS)
Prior to commencement on the superstructure of each building, a
Supplementary Drainage Strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority, for the relevant building and including
the following details:
(a) A detailed analysis of surface water run-off and explanation of how
opportunities to maximise reductions in run-off rates will be taken on the site.
Policy CE2g requires major development to achieve greenfield run-off rates
including climate change in the calculations and factoring in all flows into the
sewer system including groundwater, if these targets are not achieved the
revised SuDS strategy should outline detailed justification for not meeting this
requirement. Calculations should show the existing and proposed surface water
run-off rates for the 1 in 1yr, 1in 30yr, 1 in 100yr and 1 in 100 plus 40% CC yr
events; and,
(b) Details for all the final SuDS: their location, attenuation capacity,
specification, structural integrity, construction, operation, access, and
maintenance; and,
(c) Section/profile drawings of the SuDS if relevant (green roofs, blue roofs,
sub-base attenuation, permeable paving, planters, species, etc.); and,
(d) Drainage plans to show clearly how surface water run-off will be conveyed to
the SuDS and any connections to the sewer system (including pumps and
hydrobrakes) if necessary; and,
(e) Details of surface water management during construction and any
exceedance routes if applicable.
The SuDS shall be fully implemented in accordance with the details hereby
approved and thereafter maintained.
40. Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings
The dwellings hereby approved shall be designed and built to meet the
requirements of Part M, Volume 1 of the Building Regulations as follows:
a) A minimum of 5 dwellings to meet the requirements of M4(3) Category 3:
Wheelchair user dwellings
b) A minimum of 41 dwellings to meet the requirements of M4(2) Category 2:
Accessible and adaptable dwellings.
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development, floorplans
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, showing the location and the distribution of the dwellings within
the categories.
41. Trees and Landscaping – Details Required
Prior to commencement of works on the superstructure, a scheme of
landscaping, to include all existing trees and shrubs and proposed trees shrubs
(which shall include species that provide opportunities for pollinators) and paths
and their surfacing materials, has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.
42. Trees and Landscaping Implementaton
All tree and shrub planting forming part of the plans and details approved
through this planning permission shall be carried out in the first planting and
seeding season following the first occupation of the development or the
completion of the development whichever is the sooner. Any trees or shrubs
which, within a period of five years from the first planting and seeding season
referred to above, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased,
shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and
species.
43. Protection of Trees During Construction – Details Required
No development shall commence until full particulars of the method(s) by which
all existing trees on the site and adjacent land (except the two trees permitted
for removal in the Plaza) are to be protected during site preparation,
demolition, construction, landscaping, and other operations on the site including
erection of hoardings, site cabins, or other temporary structures, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the
development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details so
approved.
44. Bird and Bat Boxes
Prior to occupation of each part of the development, details of a scheme of
'artificial nesting opportunities' shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate bird and bat boxes.
The details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval shall
include a timetable for provision and shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved timetable and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved
details.
45. Water Efficiency
Water efficient fixtures and fittings shall be provided in all residential units to
achieve a water use target of no more than 105 litres per person per day.
46. Undercroft Improvement Scheme
Notwithstanding the approved drawings listed in Condition 2, prior to
commencement of the Pelham Street building a scheme of improvement works
to be carried out to the South Kensington Station Pelham Street Undercroft,
including a timetable for completion of agree works, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
only be carried out in accordance with the details and timetable so approved,
and retained thereafter.
47. Retention and Re-use of Shopfront at 34 Thurloe Street
Notwithstanding the approved drawings listed in condition 2, prior to the
commencement of any works to 20-34 Thurloe Street a written scheme of
investigation into the potential retention and re-use of the shopfront at 34
Thurloe Street shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. If the written scheme of investigation identifies that the
shopfront at 34 Thurloe Street can be retained and re-used, then the
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved written
scheme of investigation (seeking the re-use of this shopfront).
48. Retention and Re-use of Shopfront at 36 Thurloe Street
Notwithstanding the detailed plans and drawings approved as part of the
planning permission, no works shall commence on the Station Arcade
shopfronts or the Bullnose before a written scheme of investigation into the
potential retention, restoration, and re-use of the shopfront at 36 Thurloe
Street shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. If the written scheme of investigation identifies that the shopfront at
36 Thurloe Street can be retained and re-used, then the development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved written scheme of investigation
(seeking the re-use of this shopfront).
49. Secured by Design
Prior to the commencement of above ground works details of measures to
minimise the risk of crime and meet the specific security needs of the
development (informed by the principles and objectives of Secured by Design)
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
and retained thereafter.
50. Green Roofs
Prior to the commencement of the relevant part of the works, full details of the
green roofs including details of the substrate and planting, shall be submitted
to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained and
maintained as such thereafter.
51. Subway openings not approved
Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans and drawings (which
cannot be readily separated) there shall be no removal of the subway wall to
create two shopfronts serving the basement areas of the 20-34 Thurloe Street
building.
Listed Building Consent Conditions APP/K5600/Y/22/3301446
1. Time limit
The works hereby granted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this consent.
2. Submission of details - Bullnose
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development, full
particulars of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the works shall not be completed otherwise
than in accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of shopfronts at 1:20;
d) Signage strategy for the Bullnose shops;
e) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including any screening
required;
f) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for inspection
of all external facing materials.
3. Submission of details - Pelham Street
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development (excluding
works associated with the delivery of the Step Free Access), full particulars of
the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the works shall not be completed otherwise than in
accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of shopfronts at 1:20;
d) Signage strategy for the Pelham Street shops;
e) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including any screening
required;
f) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for inspection
of all external facing materials.
4. Submission of details - Thurloe Square
Prior to commencement of the relevant part of the development (excluding
works associated with the delivery of the Step Free Access), full particulars of
the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the works shall not be completed otherwise than in
accordance with the details so approved:
a) Detailed elevational drawings showing details and distribution of external
facing materials;
b) Detailed elevations, plans, and sectional drawings of external windows and
doors at a scale of 1:20;
c) Detailed drawings of South Kensington Underground Station Emergency Exit,
including the stairs and doors;
d) Detailed drawings of all external plant and PV units including any screening
required;
e) Samples, including sample panels, provided and retained on site for inspection
of all external facing materials.
5. Notification of start of works
No works shall commence under this listed building consent to the relevant
buildings before written notification of the intended start of works has been
provided to the Local Planning Authority with such notification providing not
less than 14 days’ notice prior to the commencement of works. For the period
of 14 days before works commence, access shall be enabled to the building,
on request from the Local Planning Authority, to allow photographs and/or
measured drawings to be undertaken.
6. Recording of works – Photographic survey
Prior to the commencement of works, a full photographic survey for buildings
and structures being demolished shall be carried out and submitted to the
Local Planning Authority and provision for their deposit and archive shall also
be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The photographic survey
shall include photographs of the full exterior and interior of the buildings and
shall be retained in accordance with the agreed details.
7. Submission of details – South Kensington Station (including Arcade) and
Subway (works insofar as allowed noting shopfronts are not allowed)
Detailed drawings, and/ or method statements including methods and
materials, and/or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the
following, shall be submitted to and approved for each relevant building in
writing by the Local Planning Authority before the relevant part of the work is
begun, and the works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with
the details so approved and shall thereafter be so maintained:
a) cleaning of brickwork;
b) pointing/brickwork repairs, including mortar mix;
c) detailed drawings including elevations and sections of new internal works to
the arcade;
d) proposed new servicing, including details of all service runs, any new ducts
or vents.
8. Work to match retained fabric
All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric within the
station and the subway, whether internal or external, shall be finished to
match the adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to colour,
material, texture, and profile.
9. Undercroft Improvement Scheme
Notwithstanding the approved drawings listed in Condition 2, prior to
commencement of the Pelham Street building (excluding works associated
with the delivery of the Step Free Access) a scheme of improvement works to
be carried out to the South Kensington Underground Station Pelham Street
Undercroft, including a timetable for completion of agree works, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details and
timetable so approved and retained thereafter.
10. Retention, restoration, and re-use of shopfront at 36 Thurloe Street
Notwithstanding the detailed plans and drawings approved as part of the
listed building consent, no works shall commence on the Station Arcade
shopfronts or the Bullnose before a written scheme of investigation into the
potential retention, restoration, and re-use of the shopfront at 36 Thurloe
Street shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. If the written scheme of investigation identifies that the shopfront
at 36 Thurloe Street can be retained and re-used, then the development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved written scheme of
investigation (seeking the re-use of this shopfront).
11. Subway openings not approved
Notwithstanding details shown on the approved plans and drawings (which
cannot be readily separated) there shall be no removal of the subway wall to
create two shopfronts serving the basement areas of the 20-34 Thurloe Street
building.
Annex A Schedule of Plans
Proposed Demolition Plans
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_3-DR- A-
1201 Demolition Platform Level Plan
P01
P01
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_3-DR- A- Demolition Platform Level Plan - Thurloe Square
1203
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_2-DR- A- Demolition Ticket Hall/ Subway Level P01
1204
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_2-DR- A- P01
1205 Demolition Ticket Hall/ Subway Level - Thurloe Street
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A- Demolition Street Level Plan P01
1206
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A- P01
1207 Demolition Street Level - Thurloe Street
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A- Demolition Street – Level Thurloe Square P01
1208
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_A-DR- A- Demolition First Level Plan P01
1209
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Demolition Cross Section A-A P01
3201
P01
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Demolition Cross Section B-B
3202
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Demolition Long Section A-A P01
3203
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Demolition Long Section A-A - Thurloe Street P01
3204
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Demolition Long Section A-A - Thurloe Square P01
3205
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- P01
4201 Demolition Elevation North
-
RSHP-A-09999-P-B1 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Basement
Plan
RSHP-A-10000-P-00 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Ground Floor -
P lan
-
RSHP-A-10001-P-01 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – First Floor
Plan
RSHP-A-10002-P-02 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Second Floor -
Plan
RSHP-A-10003-P-03 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Third Floor -
Plan
-
RSHP-A-10004-P-04 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Fourth Floor
Plan
RSHP-A-10005-P-05 Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Roof Plan -
-
RSHP-A-11000-P-00 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Square
– Ground Floor Plan
-
RSHP-A-11999-P-B1 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street
– Basement Plan
RSHP-A-12000-P-00 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street -
G round Floor Plan
-
RSHP-A-12100-P-01
Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street
F irst Floor Plan
RSHP-A-12200-P-02 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street -
S econd Floor Plan
RSHP-A-12300-P-03 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street -
Third Floor Plan
RSHP-A-12400-P-04 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street -
Fourth Floor Plan
RSHP-A-12500-P-05 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Thurloe Street -
Roof Plan
RSHP-A-13000-P-00 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Pelham Street -
Commercial Ground Floor Plan
Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Pelham Street
RSHP-A-14000-P-00 -
Residential Ground Floor Plan
RSHP-A-14999-P-B1 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – The Bullnose -
Basement Plan
RSHP-A-15000-P-00 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – The Bullnose -
Ground Floor Plan
RSHP-A-15100-P-01 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – The Bullnose -
First Floor Plan
RSHP-A-15400-P-02 Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – The Bullnose -
Roof Plan
RSHP-A-20000-S-AA Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Long Section -
AA
RSHP-A-20001-S-BB Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Long Section -
BB
RSHP-A-20002-S-CC Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Cross -
Section CC
RSHP-A-20003-S-DD Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Cross -
Section DD
RSHP-A-20004-S-EE Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Cross -
Section EE
RSHP-A-20005-S-FF Listed Buildings – Demolition and Alterations – Section FF -
RSHP-A-30000-E-N Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Existing -
Elevation – North – Thurloe Street
RSHP-A-30001-E-S Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Existing -
Elevation – South – Pelham Street
RSHP-A-30002-E-E Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Existing -
Elevation – East – Thurloe Square
RSHP-A-30003-E-W Listed Buildings Demolition and Alterations – Existing -
Elevation – West – Cromwell Place
RSHP-A-40003-D-XX Listed Buildings Details – Pelham Street Revetment Wall -
and Steel Structure Interface
RSHP-A-40004-D-XX Listed Buildings Details – Thurloe Square Bridge Alteration -
RSHP-A-40005-D-B1 Listed Buildings Details – Bullnose Basement Structure -
Interfaces
633/SU003 The Arcade No. 1 – 13 (& 35 Thurloe St) Elevation as Existing -
633/GA007 The Arcade No. 1 - 13 (& 35 Thurloe St) Elevation as -
Proposed
633/GA022A Arcade Shopfront Plans as Proposed A
Proposed Plans
RSHP-A-00010-P-00 Proposed Site Location Plan P2-
RSHP-A-00020-P-00 Proposed Site Plan P2-
RSHP-A-00999-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan -
RSHP-A-01000-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01001-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01002-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01003-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01004-P-04 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01005-P-05 Proposed Fifth Floor Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01006-P-06 Proposed Roof Plan P2-
RSHP-A-01099-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan Thurloe Square -
RSHP-A-01100-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan Thurloe Square -P2
RSHP-A-01110-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan Thurloe Square -P2
RSHP-A-01120-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan Thurloe Square -P2
RSHP-A-01130-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan Thurloe Square -P2
RSHP-A-01140-P-04 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan Thurloe Square P2-
RSHP-A-01150-P-05 Proposed Roof Plan Thurloe Square P2-
RSHP-A-01199-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan Thurloe Street -
RSHP-A-01200-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan Thurloe Street -P1
RSHP-A-01210-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan Thurloe Street P2-
RSHP-A-01220-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan Thurloe Street -P2
RSHP-A-01230-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan Thurloe Street -P2
RSHP-A-01240-P-04 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan Thurloe Street -P2
RSHP-A-01250-P-05 Proposed Roof Plan Thurloe Street -P2
RSHP-A-01299-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan Pelham Street Commercial -
RSHP-A-01300-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01310-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01320-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01330-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01340-P-04 Proposed Fourth Floor Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01350-P-05 Proposed Roof Plan Pelham Street Commercial -P2
RSHP-A-01399-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan Pelham Street Residential -
RSHP-A-01400-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan Pelham Street Residential -P2
RSHP-A-01410-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan Pelham Street Residential -P2
RSHP-A-01420-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan Pelham Street Residential -P2
RSHP-A-01430-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan Pelham Street Residential -P2
RSHP-A-01440-P-04 Proposed Roof Plan Pelham Street Residential -P2
RSHP-A-01499-P-B1 Proposed Basement Plan The Bullnose -
RSHP-A-01500-P-00 Proposed Ground Floor Plan The Bullnose -P2
RSHP-A-01505-P-00 Proposed Mezzanine Plan The Bullnose -P2
RSHP-A-01510-P-01 Proposed First Floor Plan The Bullnose -P2
RSHP-A-01520-P-02 Proposed Second Floor Plan The Bullnose -P2
RSHP-A-01530-P-03 Proposed Third Floor Plan The Bullnose -P2
RSHP-A-01540-P-04 Proposed Roof Plan The Bullnose -P2
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A-
Proposed Site Plan - Ground Level P01
1000
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_3-DR- A- Proposed Platform Level Plan P01
1001
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_3-DR- A-
Proposed Platform Level Plan - Thurloe Square P01
1003
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_2-DR- A- Proposed Ticket Hall/ Subway Level P01
1004
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_2-DR- A-
Proposed Ticket Hall/ Subway Level - Thurloe Street P01
1005
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A- Proposed Street Level Plan P01
1006
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A-
Proposed Street Level Plan Thurloe Street P01
1007
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A- P01
1008 Proposed Street Level Plan Thurloe Square
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_A-DR- A-
Proposed First Level Plan P01
1009
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_2-DR- A-
Proposed Ticket Hall/ Subway Level RCP - Thurloe Street P01
2001
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_1-DR- A-
Proposed Street Level RCP Thurloe Street P01
2002
Proposed Sections & Elevations
RSHP-A-02000-S-AA Proposed Long Section AA -P2
RSHP-A-02001-S-BB Proposed Long Section BB -P2
RSHP-A-02002-S-CC Proposed Cross Section CC -P2
RSHP-A-02003-S-DD Proposed Cross Section DD -P2
RSHP-A-02004-S-EE Proposed Cross Section EE -P2
RSHP-A-02005-S-FF Proposed Cross Section FF -P2
RSHP-A-03000-E-N Proposed Elevation - North - Thurloe Street -P2
RSHP-A-03010-E-S Proposed Elevation - South - Pelham Street -P2
RSHP-A-03020-E-E Proposed Elevation - East - Thurloe Square -P2
RSHP-A-03030-E-W Proposed Elevation - West - Cromwell Place -P2
RSHP-A-04000-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Street Street-Facing Façade -P2
RSHP-A-04001-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - The Bullnose Street-Facing Façade -P2
RSHP-A-04002-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Office Street-Facing -P2
Façade
RSHP-A-04003-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Core Street-Facing P2-
Façade
RSHP-A-04004-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Residential Street- -P2
Facing Façade
RSHP-A-04005-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Square Street-Facing -P2
Façade
RSHP-A-04006-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Square / Pelham Street Infill P2-
Building Street-Facing Façade
RSHP-A-04007-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Square Gable End Street- P2-
Facing Façade
RSHP-A-04010-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Street Station-Facing -P2
Façade
RSHP-A-04011-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - The Bullnose Station-Facing Façade -P2
RSHP-A-04012-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Office Station-Facing -P2
Façade
RSHP-A-04013-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Central Office Core -P2
Station-Facing Façade
RSHP-A-04014-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Pelham Street Residential Station- -P2
Facing Façade
RSHP-A-04015-D-XX Proposed Detailed Bay - Thurloe Square Station-Facing -P2
Façade
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Cross Section A-A P01
3001
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Cross Section B-B P01
3002
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Long Section A-A P01
3003
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Long Section A-A - Thurloe Street P01
3004
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Long Section A-A - Thurloe Square P01
3005
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Elevation North P01
4001
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Lift Lobby Elevations Street Level P01
4002
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Lift Lobby Elevations Ticket Hall Level P01
4003
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- –Proposed Lift Lobby Elevations Subway Level P01
4004
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- Proposed Elevations Ticket Hall Level 1/2 P01
4005
SKSEW-WW-PRM-D109_Z-DR- A- – Proposed Elevations Ticket Hall Level 2/2 P01
4006
633/GA001A Thurloe St No. 20 Return Elevation Repairs A
633/GA002A Thurloe St No. 20 – 26 Elevation Repairs A
633/GA003A Thurloe St No. 28 – 34 Elevation Repairs A
633/GA004A Thurloe St No. 34 Return Elevation Repairs A