influenced the historical geomorphology of the site. At

GL Hearn Page 361 of 677 Z:\J041302 - FBC Fennella House, Hendon\14. Planning Submission - 2021\ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT\Volume II - Environmental Statement\Volume II Environmental Statement.docx

influenced the historical geomorphology of the site. At the current time, however, the

study area is relatively flat and contains very few geomorphological features, as any

that were present are likely to have been removed or covered by the development

activities.

The study area is underlain by superficial deposits identified by Dollis Hill Gravel

Formation. The Dollis Hill Gravel Formation consists of gravel, sandy and clayey in

part, with some laminated silty beds. The six exploratory holes drilled/excavated as

part of the 2018 ground investigation at the site encountered Dollis Hill Gravels only

in holes here made ground was thinnest. This suggests that in places made ground

has replaced the Dollis Hill Gravel member. Where present the member is between

1.7m and 4.2m thick, lying beneath a layer of made ground. No organic material was

present in the material and it comprised either orange brown sandy gravelly clay or

clayey very gravelly sand or a stratified sequence of both these soil types.

The London Clay Formation underlies the superficial deposits, which is an over-

consolidated clay containing horizons of pyrite rich minerals. The London Clay

Formation may contain horizons of sandy clay and includes a few thin beds of shells

and fine sand partings or pockets of sand, which commonly increase towards the

base and towards the top of the formation. The six boreholes proved the London

clay to extend beyond the maximum 5.45 m depths investigated. As part of the

MUGA pitch university site investigation in 2014 the London Clay was proved to

extend beyond 20m depth bgl. Between the top of the formation and the 5.45m the

material was reddish brown and contained occasional gravel suggesting that the

stratum may have a head deposit starting layer at the top.


Surface water

There are no water courses which intersect with the study area. Drainage is

anticipated within the site boundary which may include soakaway. The Dollis Brook

is the closest water feature to the site, but this is located approx. 850m east and

such is unlikely to be affected by any disturbance caused by the development during

construction or operation.

Hydrogeology

The hydrogeological properties of the study area have been identified using

information from hydrogeological maps and BGS data.

The hydrogeological conditions vary depending on the encountered strata. The

superficial deposits are classified as Secondary A (Dollis Hill Member). The bedrock

(London Clay) is classified as an Unproductive Strata.

There are no Source Protection Zones or catchment areas within the study area or

within close proximity of the study area. There are no abstraction wells located within

the study area or within close proximity of the study area.

According to mapping in the Groundsure Report it shows the study area is at a very

low risk from flooding from rivers. The report also identified a risk of groundwater

flooding within 50m of the study area.

Four groundwater dipping visits were made in 2018/2019, looking at the findings,

one well was dry (to 4.45m depths) and the other wells had water dip levels between

1.14m and 2.01 m bgl, though typically 0.3-0.5m of variation was seen between

successive visits.


Water quality information is available for the Dollis Hill Gravel member aquifer unit

as testing was undertaken as part of the MC ground investigation in 2018. This found

a restricted range of slightly elevated determinands comprising dissolved nickel and

selenium. It was considered that these metals may be a background issue as there

was no matching elevation of these metals in the soil samples tested.

Mineral Workings and Reserves

The study area is identified as not being within any historical or current mining or

quarrying areas.

Radon and other Ground Gas

The Groundsure Report records that the area falls into a Lower probability radon

area (less than 1% of homes are estimated to be at or above the Action Level). Four

ground gas monitoring visits were undertaken between 3 November 2018 and 2

January 2019 covering four shallow gas wells. The findings were that very low gas

levels were recorded (methane -maximum 0.2% v/v non detect and maximum

carbon dioxide of 3.6% all combined with low gas floes -maximum 0.2 l/hr).

Natural contamination

According to the Groundsure background soil chemistry levels for metals mapped

by the BGS were not available for the study area.

Contamination

A summary of the baseline CSM is provided in Table 10.16. The potential impacts

and baseline risks quoted are those before any mitigation is applied.


Assessment of Effects (Construction and Operational)

Effects During Construction

This section looks at the predicted effects during construction and takes account of

the advantages applied when working in accordance with a Construction Phase

Management Plan and Site Waste Management Plan.

Ravensfield and Fenella

Made Ground

Any Made Ground encountered during the works will be dealt with according to

current standards and best practices and when supplementary investigations are

completed the GIR will outline the most appropriate remediation techniques to

remove or cap or render contamination inactive. The type of contamination is likely

to arise from tarmacadam pieces and this will, due to its bound nature, likely be of

low environmental availability. In this setting a removal or capping solution could be

applied and these are well proven techniques.

Man-Made Features

A number of man-made features have been identified within the study area. The

features are mostly associated with the development of commercial and residential

buildings and their associated infrastructure. No buried tanks have been identified

at the sub site and so the demolition of structures should be a routine activity. Prior

to removal/ or any over surfacing of existing hardstands a programme of sampling

and testing surfacing materials for coal tar will be undertaken and materials then

handled as directed by the coal tar contents.


Topsoils

A quantity of topsoil will be removed as part of the works. It is expected that the

majority of excavated material will be reused.

Geology and Geomorphology

The study area is located within an area which was influenced by one of the

tributaries associated with the River Thames, where fluvial processes have




activities. In the same way there is no geological exposures present.

Hydrogeology

The superficial deposits are classified as Secondary A (Dollis Hill Member) but there

are no abstractions close to the site and baseflow to streams may occur some 800m

or so down gradient of the site but the attenuation over this large distance will be

substantial and measured water quality is only marginally impacted based on 2019

water testing. The bedrock (London Clay) is classified as an Unproductive Strata. It

is recognised that additional testing will be conducted as part of planned

supplementary ground investigation. The drainage strategy for the site uses

attenuation and piped drainage as opposed to soakaway chambers and this will

avoid flushing effects and locally raised water levels.


Contaminated Soil

Site Users

Particulate inhalation / dermal contact

Low Medium 3

Vapour inhalation Low Medium 3

Adjoining site users

Particulate inhalation / dermal contact

Unlikely Medium 2

Construction / maintenance workers

Particulate inhalation / dermal contact / ingestion

Low Medium 3


Property (Future Landscaping)

Root Uptake Low Medium 3

Controlled Waters -Secondary A Aquifer

Leaching to ground then movement to water / aquifer

Low Medium 3

Contaminated water

Site Users Movement of contaminated groundwater

Low Medium 3


Movement of contaminated groundwater

Low Medium 3



Low Medium 3



Low Medium 3

Sulphate presence in soil and groundwater

Property Foundations

Leaching to ground then movement to ground water causing chemical attack on foundations

Likely Medium 4

Ground Gas

Site Users Vapour inhalation Unlikely Medium 2




Structural damage due to explosion of combustible gas

Unlikely Medium 2


Public green spaces Minor Minor Negligible

B9

Made Ground


current standards and best practices and when investigations are completed the GIR

will outline the most appropriate remediation techniques to remove or cap or render

contamination inactive, should it be present. The type of contamination is likely to

arise from ash from the local boiler house and this will due to its bound nature likely

be of low environmental availability. In this setting a removal or capping solution

could be applied, and these are well proven techniques.

Man-Made Features

A number of man-made features have been identified within the study area and the

most significant are the foundations of existed listed buildings. It is planned that the

ground investigation at B9 will reveal and document the configuration of existing

foundations so that these can be retained without damage or excessive loading as

a result of the placement of new foundations (principally piles)

Topsoils






influenced the geomorphology of the site. At the current time, however, the study



Ground Gas (vapours / asphyxiation)

New and existing buildings Minor Minor Negligible

Construction / maintenance workers Moderate / Minor Moderate / Minor Negligible


Meritage Centre

Made Ground


current standards and best practices and when supplementary investigations are

completed the GIR will outline the most appropriate remediation techniques to

remove or cap or render contamination inactive, should it be present. The

contamination found to be present at the site is localised and shallow and is likely to

be of low environmental availability. In this setting a removal or capping solution

could be applied, and these are well proven techniques.

Man-Made Features

A number of man-made features have been identified within the study area. The

features are mostly associated with the development of commercial and residential

buildings and their associated infrastructure. No buried tanks have been identified

at the sub site and so the demolition of structures should be a routine activity. Prior

to removal/ or any over surfacing of existing hardstands a programme of sampling

and testing surfacing materials for coal tar will be undertaken and materials then

handled as directed by the coal tar contents.


Topsoils









activities. There are no geological exposures present at the site.

Hydrogeology


superficial deposits are classified as Secondary A (Dollis Hill Member). but there are

no abstractions close to the site and baseflow to streams may occur some 800m or

so down gradient of the site but the site but attenuation over this large distance will

be substantial. The bedrock (London Clay) is classified as an Unproductive Strata.

Additional testing will be conducted as part of planned ground investigation. The

drainage strategy for the site uses attenuation and piped drainage as opposed to

soakaway chambers and this will avoid flushing effects and locally raised water

levels.


Made Ground (dust inhalation/ soil ingestion/water table reduction/leaching with flow)

Students and shared living residents Minor Moderate / Minor Negligible

Secondary A Aquifer (Superficials) Moderate / Minor Moderate / Minor Negligible



Ground Gas (vapours / asphyxiation)

new buildings Minor Minor Negligible



Effects Once the Proposed Development is Operational

Ravensfield and Fenella

Made Ground

The GIR for the sub site will outline remediation requirements and the earthworks

contractor will prepare a combined option report and remediation strategy and also

a method statement. Imported materials will be validated chemically as set out in the

remediation strategy as will the condition of all cover soils or the upper 0.5m depths

of any soils in soft landscaping left in-situ. In this way operational effects will result

in an acceptable land condition. New storm drainage is proposed to utilise an

attenuation system and piped drainage to the existing stormwater network and

flushing of low contaminants will not be enhanced compared to the baseline.

Man-Made Features

New water pipes will be designed to avoid taint to water supplies and if necessary,

may include multi-walled designs with a foil core. The basement structure and floors

will be designed to resist the ingress of carbon dioxide ground gas and the measures

will be outlined in the remediation strategy and method statement.


Topsoil

A quantity of topsoil will be removed as part of the works. It is expected that only a

portion of excavated material will be reused as contamination is proven at very

shallow depths.


The site has no measurable value in terms of geological expose and is relatively flat

and contains very few geomorphological features, and this setting will not change in

the operational phase.

Hydrogeology


superficial deposits are classified as Secondary A (Dollis Hill Member). In the same

way that damming effects on groundwater flows is not considered an issue during

construction due to a combination of the gravel deposits being patchy and

discontinuous and the basement small then the same minimal effects are assessed

for the operation phase. New piles will not penetrate close to the principal Lambeth

group/chalk aquifer as the layer is thought to be at least 70m thick. Supplementary

ground investigation will confirm that London Clay aquiclude strata extends at least

5m below the base of piles.

The water quality situation in operational, once temporal construction disturbance is

over, is likely to match the existing situation and 2018 ground investigation suggests

that there is no water impact requiring remediation.

Potential Impacts During Operation

A summary of the baseline CSM is provided in Table 10.27. The potential

impacts and baseline risks quoted are those before any mitigation is applied.




Unlikely Medium 2

Maintenance workers


Low Medium 3



Low Medium 3




Likely Medium 4

Ground Gas


Maintenance workers

Vapour inhalation Unlikely Medium 2



Unlikely Medium 2

*Risk reduction on baseline shown in green highlight, red highlight is worsening

Any travelling of vehicles will, through tyre and brake wear, cause heavy metals to

be deposited on the pavements which is then washed off in rainwater to collect in

roadside drains and gullies. The effects and mitigation of this are discussed in the

water resources chapter. Minor leakage of lubricating oils or fuel could occur at

breakdown areas. However, such leakage or spillage is expected to be very small

and unlikely to result in significant contamination.

Human Health and Environmental Impacts

A summary of potential human health and environmental impacts for the operational

stage of the development is presented in Table 10.29.




Topsoil



shallow depths.





Hydrogeology












that there is no water impact requiring remediation. Potential Impacts During

Operation


Contaminated water


Low Medium 3



Unlikely Medium 2

Maintenance workers


Low Medium 3



Low Medium 3




Likely Medium 4

Ground Gas


Maintenance workers




Unlikely Medium 2




roadside drains and gullies. Minor leakage of lubricating oils or fuel could occur at



Human Health and Environmental Impacts

A summary of potential human health and environmental impacts for the operational

stage of the development is presented in Table 10.32.




Topsoil



shallow depths.





Hydrogeology












that there is no water impact requiring remediation. Potential Impacts During

Operation



Leaching to ground then movement to water / aquifer

Low Medium 3

Contaminated water


Low Medium 3



Unlikely Medium 2

Maintenance workers


Low Medium 3



Low Medium 3




Likely Medium 4

Ground Gas


Maintenance workers




Unlikely Medium 2




roadside drains and gullies. The effects and mitigation of this are discussed in the

water resources chapter. Minor leakage of lubricating oils or fuel could occur at




handling, transportation, storing and reinstatement/re-use of soils to maintain soil

viability and biological activity.

Topsoil should be stripped from any impacted areas of the Proposed Development

and stockpiled for re-use in the landscaping works, except at RFC where

contaminated zones will be excavated and disposed off- site to suitable licenced

facility. The soils be stripped, stockpiled and replaced in accordance with the

Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of soils in construction

(DEFRA, 2009) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) Good

Practice Guide for Handling Soils by Machine (2000).

The following actions should be avoided during construction:

• Cross contamination of soil • mixing of topsoil with subsoils • over-compaction or running over emplaced topsoil • incorporation of vegetation in soil stockpiles.

The following actions are recommended during construction:

• decompaction and aeration of soil prior to placement • use of tracked plant to excavate, transport and replace soil • implementation of designated haul routes to avoid damaging in-situ soils • excavation and deposition during dry conditions.

Topsoil should not be removed from below the spread of trees that are to be retained

and restoration plans for areas temporarily required during construction will be

developed.

Drainage shall be by attenuation and piped to the drainage network. In addition the

2m to 4m deep ‘basemented’ attenuation tanks will be lined with impermeable


membranes meaning that leakage into the aquifer will not occur. In this way, and

pavement draining waters that may carry a dissolved fraction of metals and organic

compound will be kept separated from the aquifer water body and so preserve it

chemical condition

The completion of a supplementary site investigation within the study will allow the

development of risk assessments and appropriate mitigation measures to deal with

any contamination identified within the study area and this will include ground gas

categorisation.

The risks to construction workers during the construction phase of the project will be

mitigated by implementation of Health and Safety measures. This will include

suitable working methods and the correct use of Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE). These measures will be developed as part of the Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) for the Proposed Development.

As a minimum the CEMP will include the following methods and permit application

to effectively manage work in contaminated areas and avoid releases of harmful

substances to the environment and/or the unwanted movement of dust, waters and

gases. These measures will include:

• methods to control noise, waste, dust, odour, gases and vapours; • methods to control spillage and prevent contamination of adjacent areas; • the management of human exposure for both construction workers and people

living and working nearby; • methods for the storage and handling of excavated materials (both contaminated

and uncontaminated), or this information may be contained in a sister SWMP document;

• management of any unexpected contamination found during construction via a watching brief; and


• storage requirements for hazardous substances such as diesel;

A Ground Investigation Report (GIR) should be prepared once all on-site ground

investigation is completed and the results assessed against UK soils and

groundwater standards. The report will need to take account of the existing studies

at MS and RFC. The GIR will include risk assessment to be undertaken to determine

what, if any, site specific remediation measures are required to break contaminated

land linkages as well as removing topsoil/most shallow Mage Ground in areas of

RFC. The GIR will confirm the scale of gas protection measures required as part the

basement/floor construction at RFC.

At this stage, no additional measures are considered necessary to mitigate risks

from land contamination during the construction stage beyond those that will be

instigated as part of the earthwork design. These measures would ensure that risks

to people, fand flora and property from contaminants in the ground would be

controlled such that they would not be significant.

Mitigation Once the Proposed Development is Operational

Adherence to measures to protect the integrity of any cap applied as provided in the

health and safety file so that any cover layers are not damaged by future works in

the ground

Roof and car parking drainage should not be allowed to discharge groundwater in

an uncontrolled manner. Highway drains should discharge into either combined

sewers or into controlled attenuation crates designed for drainage.

Drainage shall be installed no deeper than the minimum required depth to minimise

lowering of the groundwater level within the aquifer.


At this stage, no additional measures are considered necessary to mitigate risks

from land contamination during the operational stage beyond those that will be

instigated as part of the earthwork design. These measures would ensure that risks

to people, fand flora and property from contaminants in the ground would be

controlled such that they would not be significant.

Residual Impacts and Monitoring

With regards to geology and geomorphology no significant residual effects are

anticipated associated with the Proposed Development.

With regards to topsoil and soils no significant residual effects are anticipated

associated with the Proposed Development.

With regards to hydrogeology no significant residual effects are anticipated

associated with the Proposed Development.

With regards to contamination no significant residual effects are anticipated

associated with the Proposed Development, and specifically for RFC, locally slightly

beneficial effects should arise where contaminated existing topsoil/very shallow

made ground is treated or removed.

Additional requirements for monitoring are not required based on the existing ground

investigations but could potentially arise as part of the planned supplementary

investigation, remediation watching brief. The validation report for the site, which will

be prepared by the main contractor will stipulate any monitoring requirements which

result from unforeseen changes in ground conditions.


On review of the information available it is assessed that there are no residual

impacts arising from the Proposed Development on the geology and soils aspects

for any of the three development areas assessed in this report.

Cumulative Effects

As part of the assessment for geology and soils the cumulative effects of the

Proposed Development and other known developments within the vicinity have been

considered with regards to the overall impact on the geology and soils aspects.

Twelve other developments have been identified within the surrounding area to the

Proposed Development. The identified planning applications considered include:

• 19/2517/FUL: Fosters Estate • 18/7495/FUL: Westhorpe Gardens and Mills Grove • 20/5081/FUL: Hendon Post Office • 21/3396/FUL: 3-3A Burroughs Parade • 20/2105/FUL: 6 Church Terrace • 21/2731/FUL: 2 Egerton Gardens • 20/4902/FUL: Church House • 20/5179/PNV: Raffles House • 18/7001/FUL: 9 Burroughs Gardens • 21/3077/S73: Mulberry Close • 20/1111/FUL: 46 Watford Way • 20/1898/PNO: 65 Watford Way

A further five development areas which form part of the wider Hendon Hub

regeneration scheme but were scope out of the Environmental Statement have also

been considered in terms of cumulative effects. These identified areas include:

• Fuller Street Car Park • Prince of Wales Estate


• Daniel Almshouses • Linear Woodland • The Former Quinta Club.

Given the urban setting of the site and the prevalence of concealment of the geology

and geomorphological features, current and future projects in the area are unlikely

to be of a scale and nature that would significantly affect the geology and soils of the

area.

On review of the available information and considering the Proposed Development

and the twelve other developments identified within close proximity, any cumulative

effects on the geology and soils are considered to be low. This assessment is based

on the type of underlying geology, ALC assessments, current land uses, known

contamination sources and in some cases distance from the Proposed Development

and size of the proposals. In addition, the aquifers within the superficial deposits are

unlikely to be connected over large distances due to their distribution or being

interbedded with strata of low permeability so any hydrogeological connectivity is

likely low.

The assessment has considered the likely significant effects of the Proposed

Development both collectively and as a single project and have concluded that the

finding of no significant residual effects still applies and any cumulative effects on

the geology and soils are considered to be low

Summary

The Proposed Development forms part of a project to regenerate Hendon Town

Centre. The proposals involve bringing forward the redevelopment and landscape

improvements on the following sites: Ravensfield and Fenella, Building 9 and the

Meritage Centre.


There are no geological or geomorphological features of scientific interest or

importance within or adjacent to the study area.

There are no areas of significant contamination identified with the available

information.

The Agricultural Land Classification for the Proposed Development is assessed as

Non-Agricultural Land – Urban.

If the correct procedures and guidance are followed, and appropriate techniques are

adopted during construction and operation, the potential effects can be controlled

and managed, such that the significance of negative effects on the geology, soils,

hydrogeology and contamination of the study area can be limited to a minor to

negligible adverse level.

A summary of residual impacts is provided in Table 36.


Construction activities impacting upon Topsoil

Low Temporary Local scale Moderate Minor Adverse (Not

Significant)

Topsoil should not be removed from below the spread of trees that are to be retained and

restoration plans for areas temporarily required during construction will be developed

Negligible (Not Significant)

Hydrogeology – changes in groundwater quality due to construction activities.

Low Temporary Local scale Minor Negligible Adverse

(Not Significant)

Supplementary groundwater monitoring will be undertaken as part of planned ground

investigations


Contamination within the soils Negligible Temporary

Local scale Moderate Negligible Adverse (Not Significant)

Supplementary sampling and testing as part of planned ground investigation with remediation

action finalisation. Earthworks managed as part of a remediation method statement and with

monitoring as provided if by the method statement in applying topsoil/shallowest made

ground treatment or removal at RFC property at already identified contamination areas


Operational Effects

Contamination within the soils Negligible

Short to Long Term, Direct, Permanent

Moderate Negligible Adverse (Not Significant)

Adherence to measures to protect the integrity of any cap applied as provided in the health and

safety file so that any cover layers are not damaged by future works in the ground



Hydrogeology (Secondary A aquifer) contamination entering the groundwater system

Low Short to Long Term, Direct, Permanent

Minor Negligible Adverse (Not Significant)

Roof and car parking drainage should not be allowed to discharge groundwater in an

uncontrolled manner. Highway drains should discharge into either combined sewers or into

controlled attenuation crates designed for drainage


Hydrogeology – lowering of groundwater local groundwater table

Low Short to Long Term, Direct, Permanent

Minor Negligible Adverse (Not Significant)

Drainage shall be installed no deeper than the minimum required depth to minimise lowering of

the groundwater level within the aquifer.



11 ARCHAEOLOGY Introduction

Mills Whipp Projects, in collaboration with Pre-Construct Archaeology, has been

appointed to undertake an archaeological assessment of the Proposed

Development to accompany the planning applications that the Applicant, the LBB, is

bringing forward as part of the Hendon Hub.

This chapter is supported by a series of technical appendices comprising:

• Appendix 11.1: Hendon Hub Building 9 Desk Based Assessment: Archaeology • Appendix 11.2: Hendon Hub Meritage Centre, Desk Based Assessment:

Archaeology • Appendix 11.3: Hendon Hub Regeneration, Ravensfield & Fenella Centre, Desk-

Based Assessment: Archaeology

Legislation and Policy Context

With regards to the potential effect of the Proposed Development upon the

archaeological resource, the following legislation and planning policy applies.

Legislation

The principal legislation is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act

1979108. It protects Scheduled Ancient Monuments from accidental or deliberate

damage. Scheduled Monuments are maintained on a list held by the Secretary of

State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. The legislation demands that

changes to Scheduled Monuments require Scheduled Monument Consent in

advance of any alterations or works. The Act also furnishes the Secretary of State

and local authorities with powers to designate areas of archaeological importance,

based upon non-statutory criteria regarding the significance of the archaeological

108 HMSO 1979, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act


receptors within those areas. The legislation stipulates that any operations that may

disturb or damage the archaeological resource within such areas are not permitted

without prior consent from the relevant planning body.

Further legislation is offered by the National Heritage Act (1997, 2002 & 2005) which

provides for the conservation and preservation of heritage and the Treasure Act

(1996) which defines which objects are classified as treasure and the obligation of

the finder to report their find.

National Policy: National Planning Policy Framework (2021)

Planning policy in the UK is governed by the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF), originally published in 2012 and revised in July 2021109 Chapter 16 of the

NPPF advises that planning considerations should: require an applicant to describe

the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by

their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance

and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on

their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should

have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise

where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has

the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning

authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based

assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation

Regional Policy: The London Plan (adopted March 2021)

Policy HC1 of the London Plan, Heritage Conservation and Growth110, recognises

the importance of heritage assets, including any below-ground archaeological

resource, in terms of improving access, interpretation and preservation. The

legislation also recognises that development proposals affecting heritage assets and

their settings should conserve their significance through sympathetic design and

appreciation of their setting, as well as recognising that cumulative impacts of

109 Department for Communities and Local Government, (2021); National Planning Policy Framework 110 GLA, (2021); The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London


development on heritage assets and their settings should be actively managed.

Furthermore, it states that development proposals should avoid harm and identify

enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the

design process. Development proposals should identify assets of archaeological

significance and use this information to avoid harm or minimise it through design and

appropriate mitigation. Where applicable, development should make provision for

the protection of significant archaeological assets and landscapes. The protection of

undesignated heritage assets of archaeological interest equivalent to a scheduled

monument should be given equivalent weight to designated heritage assets.

Local Policy: LBB (LPA) Local Plan (Core Strategy)

The LBB (LPA) Development Plan Document (2012), Section 7.4 ‘Archaeological

Heritage’, sets out the specific criteria against which planning applications for the

development and use of land and buildings will be considered and provides local

standards for the development of sites. It states that where there is good reason to

believe that there are remains of archaeological importance on a site, we will

consider directing applicants to supply further details of proposed developments,

including the results of an archaeological desk-based assessment and field

evaluation.

Nineteen ‘Local Areas of Special Archaeological Significance are identified in the

plan. Development proposals in these areas will need to provide detail in

consultation with GLAAS of how they will investigate, catalogue and where possible

preserve the remains in situ or in a museum as part of any application. The bulk of

the Proposed Development lies within a ‘Local Area of Special Archaeological

Significance: Area 15 Hendon’ which covers The Burroughs, Parson Street, Hendon

Place and Golders Green. The Ravensfield and Fenella Site is adjacent to the

eastern boundary of that designated area, whereas the Building 9 Site and the

Meritage Centre Site sit within it.


Policy DM06 of the LBB (LPA) Development Plan Document (2012) states:

All heritage assets will be protected in line with their significance. All development will have regard to the local historic context. Development proposals must preserve or enhance the character and appearance of 16 Conservation Areas in Barnet. Proposals involving or affecting Barnet’s heritage assets…should demonstrate the following:

• the significance of the heritage asset • the impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset • the impact of the proposal on the setting of the heritage asset • how the significance and /or setting of a heritage asset can be better revealed • the opportunities to mitigate or adapt to climate change • how the benefits outweigh any harm caused to the heritage asset

There will be a presumption in favour of retaining all 1,600 Locally Listed Buildings in Barnet and any buildings which makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the 16 Conservation areas. Archaeological remains will be protected in particular in the 19 identified Local Areas of Special Archaeological Significance’ and elsewhere in Barnet. Any development that may affect archaeological remains will need to demonstrate the likely impact upon the remains and the proposed mitigation to reduce that impact.

The following standards and guidance have been adopted in preparing this

methodology:

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance: historic environment desk based assessment (2019) and CIfA code of conduct (2017)

• The Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) • Historic England Good Practice Advice Documents (2015 & 2017) • Historic England Guidelines for Archaeological Projects in Greater London (April

2015) • English Heritage, 2015 - Management of Archaeological Recording Projects in

the Historic Environment • DMRB LA 106- Cultural Heritage Assessment (2020).


Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria

This section presents the methodology used to assess the potential effects of the

Proposed Development in relation to archaeology.

Consultation

Mills Whipp Projects undertook a pre-application consultation with Historic England’s

Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) for Building 9,

Ravensfield and Fenella Centre and Meritage Centre Sites.

Building 9 Site

In summary, comments from Historic England on the DBA submitted in November

2020 (Appendix 11A) have been received (Historic England ref: CLO32641).111

They indicate that a review of existing impact against proposed plans (once known)

would be needed in order to determine if any mitigation would be warranted. If

mitigation is needed then a watching brief may be the most appropriate strategy.

Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site

Historic England have indicated (Historic England ref: CLO32600) that a detailed

assessment of development impact should be carried out in order to determine what

further archaeological works are required.112 This would most likely comprise an

evaluation to test archaeological potential and survival in order to determine if further

mitigation is warranted. They state that any archaeological evaluation and mitigation

can be caried out in accordance with a planning condition.

Meritage Centre Site

111 Pre-application advice issued by Laura O’Gorman, planning officer at Historic England (GLAAS) to Mills Whipp Projects Ltd regarding a pre-application consultation for the Hendon Hub Regeneration: Building 9, 8 December 2020. 112 Pre-application advice issued by Laura O’Gorman, planning officer at Historic England (GLAAS) to Mills Whipp Projects Ltd regarding a pre-application consultation for the Hendon Hub Regeneration: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre, 2 December 2020.


Assessment Methodology


construction and operation phases of the Proposed Development in relation to

Archaeology.

The assessment has considered the effects of the Proposed Development on any

pre-modern deposits. Any identified effects would arise from the construction of new

foundations, the construction of which may remove the pre-modern deposits. This

has been undertaken by assessing the baseline conditions to predict the probable

presence or otherwise of archaeological receptors, the sensitivity of which are then

assessed. The magnitude of change of the Proposed Development upon those

receptors has then been established. Those two criteria have been combined to

determine the scale of the effect in terms of construction and operation phases of

the Proposed Development. Consideration of the nature of the impact (direct or

indirect) and the likely duration of the impact (permanent or temporary) has been

considered.

Impact Areas

The impact area of the construction phase archaeological assessment is shown in

Figures 1, 10 and 11 within Appendices 11A, 11B and 11C (Building 9, Ravensfield

and Fenella Centre and Meritage Centre).

The impact of the Proposed Development in terms of construction and existence

effects upon the archaeological resource include:

• direct effects on buried archaeological remains • indirect effects on the settings of buried archaeological remains

The magnitude of change has been assessed through an evaluation of how and to

what extent the Proposed Development would directly or indirectly impact upon any


Due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, in person visits to libraries

and archive centres could not be undertaken, however a thorough search of online

resources, including cartography, pertinent grey literature and online publications,

was carried out.

Baseline Conditions

The baseline conditions presented here represent the combined results of three

desk-based studies for Building 9 (Appendix 11A), the Ravensfield and Fenella

Centre (Appendix 11B) and the Meritage Centre (Appendix 11C). All historic maps

referenced in this section can be found in Appendices 11A to 11C. The following

represents a synopsis of those desk-based studies, the results of which are

presented in full in the aforementioned appendices, along with full bibliographic and

GLHER references for the data contained in this summary.

Geology and Topography

The Proposed Development is underlain by London Clay, which in the Hendon area

is partly covered by drift deposits of Thames Terrace Gravel, specifically the Dollis

Hill Gravel of Pleistocene date114. The Dollis Hill gravel is one of the oldest of the

gravel terraces, pre-dating the diversion of the Thames to its approximate position

during the Anglian glaciation c.450,000 years ago.

The Proposed Development sits on an area of higher ground, the Hendon Plateau,

at an elevation of c.80m OD.

Both the London Clay and Dollis Hill Gravel was recorded during an archaeological

evaluation in 2002 at MDX at a depth of between 0.60m and 1.0m below ground

level. Just to the south a further evaluation in 2007 recorded ‘natural sandy gravel’

(Dollis Hill Gravel) at an elevation of 83.23m OD. At Church End it was recorded at

114 British Geological Survey, Sheet 256.


89m OD, representing some of the highest ground in the vicinity of the Proposed

Development. In the vicinity of Hendon Hall Hotel to the north-east of the Hendon

Hub scheme, London Clay was recorded at an elevation of 68.73m OD. To the north

on Sunningfields Road mottled clays (London Clay) were record at a depth of 0.5m.

These areas lay off the Hendon Plateau to the north and beyond the vicinity of early

settlements.

It is important to note that the Dollis Hill Gravels of the Hendon Plateau would have

provided an attractive area for semi-permanent or permanent settlement of all

periods from the arrival of farming in the Bronze Age onwards due to the fertile, well-

drained, lighter soils that characterise such gravel terraces.

Cary’s map of 1786 also shows the two water courses in the study area before the

natural topography was obscured by the modern suburb. The Dollis Brook runs along

the eastern side of the higher ground, approximately 1.0km east of the development

plots. Approximately 750m west of the Proposed Development the Silk Stream runs

along the western side of the high ground. Both lie at an elevation of around 40m

OD and drain into the Welsh Harp Reservoir and in turn the River Brent before

discharging into the River Thames at Brentford.

Prehistoric

The GLHER does not list any Palaeolithic artefacts within the study area, however

43 Mesolithic flints pertaining to the period c.10,000–4,000 BC have been found in

the vicinity of St Mary’s Church. A worked flint from Hendon Lane just over 1km to

the east of the Proposed Development is noted, while at Greyhound Hill, just north

of the Church Farm Museum, several scattered struck flints were found. There is

also limited evidence for Mesolithic occupation activity across the broader area,

including two find spots near the upper reaches of the Silk Stream over 3km to the

north; a pick from Edgwarebury Lane, a flint assemblage from Bury Farm and


numerous prehistoric flints from the headwaters of the Dollis Brook. These finds are

thought to represent evidence of sporadic visitations to the area by Mesolithic hunter-

gatherers.

The excavations at St Mary’s Church retrieved struck flints and burnt flint perhaps

pertaining to the Neolithic, while struck flints were also retrieved from Church Terrace,

although many were poor quality making dating difficult. Further afield, a flint axe

was found approximately 1km east of the Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site in

Kings Close and a flint artefact from the upper reaches of the Silk Stream was found

approximately 3km to the north.

A general lack of Bronze and Iron Age finds in the vicinity of the Proposed

Development on the GLHER suggest that the claylands of north London offered

difficult conditions for an agricultural economy to flourish. The Dollis Hill Gravels

would have been more attractive but little evidence for their settlement at this time

has been found. Only two Bronze Age find spots are listed in the Greater London

assessment for LB Barnet, a barbed and tanged arrowhead from Lawrence Street

approximately 2km to the north and a cremation jar from Ashford Common found

approximately 1km to the south-west. In broad terms, this evidence seems to

indicate a lack of intense activity in the later prehistoric period on the Hendon Plateau

and there is no evidence for a focus for settlement activity in the study area.

Roman

The Hendon Plateau is situated in the hinterland of the Roman town of Londinium

and approximately 1.25km east of Watling Street, the main Roman road to the north

via Verulamium (St Albans). On the Dollis Hill Gravels of the Hendon Plateau there

is a cluster of Roman finds at Church Terrace, Church Farm Museum, Church End

Farm and as far west as Sunny Hill. Excavations at Church Terrace produced mainly

3rd and 4th century pottery (135 sherds) and building materials with some earlier


pottery, which together suggest the former presence of settlement and a masonry

building of uncertain function. Lesser quantities of Roman sherds were also retrieved

from Church Farmhouse and Church Farm Museum, while a coarse pottery lamp of

late 3rd to 4th century date was found at 20 Sunny Hill.

The Hendon Archaeology Priority Area (APA) also notes an assemblage of Roman

finds including pottery, mortaria, a tessellated pavement, cinerary urns, bricks and

millstones that suggest a villa may have lain in the gardens of Grove House in the

vicinity of The Burroughs approximately 500m south-west of the Meritage Centre

Site. A further ‘cinerary urn’ and a coin of the Emperor Hadrian were reportedly

discovered in Sunny Gardens to the north of the Roman finds concentrations around

Church End while almost 1km to the southwest several sherds of Roman pottery

were retrieved from Hendon School at Golders Rise.

Further afield, a settlement on Watling Street to the north of Londinium is proposed

at Brockley Hill, c.7km to the north-west. Watling Street was the main road north-

west from Londinium to Verulamium (St Albans). It lay approximately 1.25km west

of the Meritage Centre Site and was the antecedent to the A5 Edgware Road. A

further Roman road may have run northwards toward Verulamium from the Hendon

Plateau just east of Church Terrace and the Meritage Centre site. A possible Roman

road surface was also identified at the southern end of Brent Street, over 65m to the

south-east of the Proposed Development.

Saxon

A post-Roman ‘British’ population may have remained in the vicinity of Hendon

during the post-Roman and Saxon periods. This is suggested by the name of the

River Brent, which may derive from the Celtic word Brigantia, perhaps meaning ‘high’

or ‘holy’ river. This is yet to be confirmed archaeologically, however.


The earlier Roman settlement in the vicinity of Church End may have continued or

been re-founded during the Saxon period. This is demonstrated by the presence of

a Saxon ditch to the immediate east of the Meritage Centre Site at Church Terrace,

which contained Saxon chaff-tempered pottery, a spiral headed pin and numerous

pig bones. Saxon pottery was also discovered at Church Farm, while early

mediaeval pottery, possibly of Saxon or later date, was retrieved from an excavated

posthole at Hendon School, Bell Lane (c. 750m to the east of the Proposed

Development).

St Mary’s Church, just north of the Meritage Centre Site, may have been founded in

the Saxon period, although this question remains unresolved. What can be said with

certainty is that the boundaries of Hendon parish were largely fixed by the late 10th

century. It is possible that two ditches excavated at Church Terrace could represent

the boundary ditches of a church enclosure, although the dating is not very secure.

The excavations did, however, record one of the largest Saxon pottery assemblages

from the London region, 198 sherds of cooking pots and jars, confirming a settlement

in the vicinity of St Mary’s Church. Fragments of Saxon quern stone and a Saxon

copper-alloy spiral-headed pin of 7th to 8th century date were also found.

Excavations at The Burroughs recovered 397 sherds of late Saxon to mediaeval

pottery dating from the 10th to the 14th century. This suggests a further settlement

core at the Burroughs approximately 500m to the south.

‘Hendon’ may have derived from the Anglo Saxon Hean-dune meaning the ‘high

down’ or high hill’ and ‘Burroughs’ may derive from burg or ‘fort’. Charters dating

from the 7th century suggest that Watling Street (Edgware Road, approximately

1.25km to the west) formed a land boundary for an early estate. The road is likely to

have remained in used after the Roman period forming the main route between

Mercia and its major seaport at London. An early route south-westward from Hendon

to The Hyde on Watling Street may have formed the antecedent to Brent Street and


The Burroughs. The study area lay within the Gore Hundred of Middlesex and the

manor of Hendon. The manor was granted by King Edgar and Dunstan (Bishop of

London) to the abbey of Westminster in AD 959. A church is first mentioned in AD

1080, succeeded by the parish church of St Mary’s.

Mediaeval

In Domesday (1086) the manorial estate was assigned to Westminster Abbey’s St

Peter’s Church and assessed at 20 hides. It had 46 people living in a heavily wooded

area farming pigs, cattle and cultivating arable land. Settlement nuclei lay across the

manorial estate at Church End, Brent Street and to the south off The Burroughs. The

settlement of Hendon itself is recorded as having a priest, 26 villagers with land for

16 ploughs, a meadow for two oxen and woodland for 1,000 pigs.

This documentary evidence is supported by various excavations on the western side

of the Burroughs and Hendon Town Hall, which yielded mediaeval material including

397 sherds of 10th to 14th century pottery and 12th to 14th century pottery. A little

further west of The Burroughs a single sherd of mediaeval pottery was retrieved.

St Mary’s Church is first mentioned in AD 1157 and has a late Norman stone font.

The extant church has a 13th century nave, chapel and north aisle with major

rebuilding in the 15th, 16th and 20th centuries. It is Grade II* listed and lies on the

northern side of Church End adjacent to the northern side of the Meritage Centre

Site, while its churchyard adjoins Sunny Hill Park. Many of the headstones are Grade

II listed.

St Mary’s probably formed the core of the mediaeval settlement at Church End. In

keeping with this, excavations at Church End revealed the churchyard’s perimeter

ditch, which yielded 385 sherds of 12th century grey-ware. Other settlement

evidence included two ditches, three post holes and three or four graves found just

south of the Clerk’s House (St Mary’s Cottage) within a probable mediaeval


extension to the graveyard. Finds of pottery indicate continued settlement into the

15th century while examples of decorated jugs suggest a reasonable standard of

living. Coins dating from the early 14th century were also retrieved and numerous

sheep and pig bones were recorded.

Further mediaeval pottery was retrieved from Church End during excavations in

1961-66 and at Church Farmhouse Museum gardens in 1993. The latter was

associated with a ditch which contained much burnt wood with later Saxon and

mediaeval pottery and mediaeval building material. A number of gullies and post

holes were also excavated indicating structural remains. An extension to the

mediaeval ditch was excavated in 1996 just to the north and mediaeval pottery is

also recorded from the southern side of Church Road at Church End Farm.

In 1326 a new country house ‘The Rectory’ was built in Parson Street, called Hendon

Place, by the Abbot of Westminster on demesne land at Parson Green. This became

the first manor house during the direct administration by the Abbey becoming the

focus for manorial activity. In 1593 it became known as Hendon House.

Hendon Manor was retained and managed by the abbey of Westminster until the

Dissolution. In 1551 it was granted to the earl of Pembroke whose family held it until

1650 when it was sequestrated by parliament. From then on it passed through a

number of private hands. The Hendon Hub development plots lie within the demesne

lands of Hendon Manor. Accounts of the 14th century list 469 acres of arable land,

35 acres of meadow and an unspecified amount of woodland.

By 1597 there was a cross-roads at the Burroughs where a workhouse and other

buildings later stood around a pond. This general settlement pattern was still there

in the late 18th century and is shown on Cary’s map of 1786.

Edgware Road continued in use as one of the main routes north. A second important

route north was via Hampstead and Golders Hill joining Edgware Road north of the


Hyde after passing through The Burroughs. In 1593 it was described as ‘ancient

highway now unaccustomed’ suggesting it had formerly been preferred to Edgware

Road. A network of minor roads crossed the area. Parson Street, the northward

continuation of Brent Street was in 1321 part of the route to the north of the parish.

Burroughs Lane (later Station Road) lead from Edgware Road south of the Silk

Bridge to Burroughs and Church Road. Hall Lane ran north from the St Mary’s and

Ashley Lane ran roughly parallel to it about 750m further east.

Post-mediaeval

During the 16th–18th centuries the Proposed Development lay within an agricultural

landscape. Its character is illustrated on ‘A Prospect of Copped Hall’ c. 1725 looking

south. Hendon is illustrated in the distance set within surroundings of fields bounded

by hedges.

Several of the farmhouses in the vicinity of the Proposed Development were rebuilt

in the 16th and 17th centuries, Church End Farm’s farmhouse dates to c.1650 and

is the sole survivor and one of the most complete examples of Middlesex vernacular

architecture. It was restored in 1954 and lies just west of the Meritage Centre Site.

Archaeological evidence for the 16th and 17th centuries comes from the excavations

at Church Terrace where pottery, decorated floor tiles, coins and clay pipes indicate

domestic activity. Extensions to St Mary’s Church were undertaken in the late 15th

and 16th centuries and excavations revealed demolition debris from earlier timber

buildings. Stone footings, tile and a possible hearth suggest a 17th-century phase of

building and Church House became an inn and meeting place for the Vestry making

Church End the hub of the settlement and core of settlement of Hendon. Additional

evidence for 17th to 18th-century occupation in the area can be found to the west on

Brent Street, where boundary ditches, perhaps associated with tenement blocks,

were recorded below an 18th-century soil horizon.


By the early 18th century Church End still formed the heart of a small community

that included St Mary’s Church, The Greyhound and Church House, Church End

Farm and Church Farm farmhouse as well as a small, unnamed cluster of buildings.

The layout of the village was depicted on Crow’s survey of 1754-6. The Church

Terrace Excavations revealed the brick foundations of a timber building and brick

and tile drains. By the late 18th century these had been replaced by foundations

trenches for Hearn’s House. The Church Farmhouse Museum occupies the original

mid-17th century ‘L’ plan farmhouse, brick faced and with a tile roof. It is a Grade II

Listed Building.

On the western fringe, Grove House, one of the largest seats in the parish stood in

extensive grounds to the northwest of The Burroughs. Built in 1753, it was

demolished in 1934 and the grounds became a public park. Excavations in 2007 for

MDX’s Hatchcroft Development recorded two 18th century ditches and a post-

mediaeval pond thought to be associated with landscaping for Grove House.

Settlement also continued into the post-mediaeval period at The Burroughs.

Excavations at the former Hendon Bus Garage revealed a red brick wall and small

arch, perhaps Ravensfield House, an 18th-century structure.

In 1756, Hendon Place in Parsons Green lay at the corner of Ashley Lane and

Parson Street to the north of the Meritage Centre Site. Excavations in 2019 at

Hendon Hall Hotel recorded masonry structures and drainage associated with

Hendon Hall, a mid-18th century Manor House with extensive grounds.

By the 19th century suburban building approached and parts of Hendon ‘became

conveniently placed for dairy farming’. One substantial dairy farm lay near Church

End in the vicinity of the Proposed Development.

Soon after Hendon Railway Station was opened in 1868 Church End was developed

with houses forming a residential area. Fuller Street and the terraces of Heading


Street and Prince of Wales Road were built in the late 19th century. The northern

limit of housing was marked by Sunny Gardens Road and Sunningfields Road.

Sunningfields Crescent was laid out in 1882. The Midlands Railway line ran west of

the development plots and its impact was mainly limited to that part of the parish i.e.

Cricklewood, Hyde, Colindeep and Hale. In 1921 Sunny Hill Park was created by

Hendon local council following the purchase of 16 acres of land that previously

belonged to Church Farmhouse, being enlarged in 1929.

Suburban creep northwards was halted after the Second World War by the

imposition of the Green Belt allowing fields to survive north of Mill Hill and Highwood

Hill. East of Edgware Road and south of the Proposed Development,

suburbanisation was stimulated by the extension of the Underground through

Hendon Central to Edgware and the building of arterial roads. By 1935 houses had

covered the whole area to the south and the urban district became the Municipal

Borough of Hendon. In 1965 the LBB was founded replacing the Municipal Borough

and a year later the M1 was opened.

Map Regression: Building 9 (Appendix 1: Figures 1–9)

Rocque’s map of 1757 and Cary’s map of 1786 (Appendix 11A: Figures 3 and 4)

shows the Building 9 site sitting in-between the settlements at Church End to the

north and The Burroughs to the south in an area that may have been occupied by

the grounds of Grove House. A similar situation is shown on the Ordnance Survey

maps of 1877 and 1895 although the house has been renamed ‘Hendon Grove’

(Appendix 11A: Figures 5 and 6). By 1912 the OS map shows council offices

adjacent to the southern side of the site (Appendix 11A: Figure 7).

The OS map of 1935 shows two large buildings now occupying the Building 9 Site,

the eastern one being the new library (Appendix 11A: Figure 8). The town hall is now

shown on the southern side of the site and the Fire Station on the northern side. By


1955 the OS map shows that a further building has been added to the western end

of the site (Appendix 11A: Figure 9). On the later OS maps this building is shown to

have been replaced by the larger building currently occupying this part of the site

(Appendix 11A: Figure 1).

Map Regression: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre (Appendix 2: Figures 1–9)

Like the Building 9 Site, the Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site lies in an area of

fields between the two ancient settlement cores from the publication of the Rocque

map up to and beyond the compilation of the OS map of 1877 (Appendix 11B:

Figures 3–5). The site occupies an open field with a north-south boundary near its

eastern side.

By the end of the 19th century the field had been divided into housing plots (Appendix

11B: Figure 6). The chapel of Our Lady of Dolours’ lies just beyond the southern side

of the site. By 1912 the OS map indicates that three more terraced houses had been

built on the southern part of the site (Appendix 11B: Figure 7). This situation is still

shown on the OS maps of 1935 and 1955 (Appendix 11B: Figures 8 and 9).

Map Regression: Meritage Centre (Appendix 3: Figures 1–9)

The Meritage Centre Site (Appendix 11C: Figure 1) lies on the north eastern side of

the junction of The Burroughs and Church End in an area shown to be occupied by

several buildings, at least some of which pre-date the publication of the Rocque map

of 1757 (Appendix 11C: Figure 3).

The mid-18th century layout of the settlement at Church End is illustrated on Crows

Map of 1754 (Appendix 11C: Figure 4). The Meritage Centre site’s central area lies

on the northern part of The Croft in the vicinity of a possible Coach House, while its

northern area is occupied by cottages, the timber framed Clerk’s House and a brick


house called Rankin’s House. At the rear lies an orchard and just to the north lay the

Greyhound Inn.

The OS map of 1877 (Appendix 11C: Figure 5) shows the Site to be occupied by

buildings on the eastern side of Church End. The site’s central area is shown to be

occupied by a large house and its grounds and its northern area is occupied by

houses, cottages and gardens.

By the end of the 19th century this part of Hendon had been redeveloped with the

establishment of new streets lined with terraced houses to the north of Church Lane,

later Church Road (Appendix 11C: Figure 6). The central area of the site is now

occupied by a number of small houses and gardens and the northern area by both

terraced housing and larger houses on its northern half. By 1912 these larger houses

had been replaced with terraced housing (Appendix 11C: Figure 7). This situation is

still shown on the OS maps of 1935 and 1955 (Appendix 11C: Figures 8 and 9). The

residential area was mostly demolished to make way for the buildings currently

occupying the site.

Previous Impacts: Building 9

As set out in full in Appendix 11A, archaeological survival in Hendon is generally

considered to be poor as deposits are typically found at shallow depths between

0.5m and 1m below modern ground level. This is supported by excavations

undertaken to the immediate north of the Building 9 Site, which demonstrated that

large parts of the site were disturbed.

The Building 9 Site is currently occupied by three modern large-scale buildings;

Building 9, the Hendon Library, the Hendon Town Hall Annexe and Hendon Town

Hall. The existing modern building foundations associated with these building will

have removed any archaeological resource in their footprint. Survival of the

archaeological resource on the Building 9 site is therefore considered to be very low.


Previous Impacts: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre

The Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site is currently occupied by three Victorian

terraced properties, 1-3 Burroughs incorporating shops, outbuildings and a carpark

and No.3 Egerton Gardens in the southern part of the Site. The northern and central

parts are occupied by two large-scale modern buildings, Ravensfield House and the

Fenella Building, leased to MDX. As the predicted depth of any archaeological

receptors in the Hendon area is shallow (c. 0.5m to 1m), it is expected that

foundations and services associated with these building will have severely truncated

and fragmented any substrata on the site. Potential archaeological survival is

therefore likely to be limited to yards and car parks.

Previous Impacts: Meritage Centre

Currently the Meritage Centre Site is mostly occupied by large modern buildings

(Appendix 11C: Figure 1). The central area is occupied by 2-6 Church Terrace and

28-30 Church End. The northern area is occupied by Meritage Club and 32-46

Church End. The southern part of the site is occupied by 13-21 Prince of Wales

Close (also known as 13-21 Church End). As the predicted depth of any

archaeological receptors is shallow (c.0.5m to 1m), it is expected that foundations

and services associated with these buildings will have severely truncated and

fragmented any substrata on the site. Additionally, the north-western quarter of the

Site was excavated by HADAS in 1973–4, an undertaking that may have removed

all archaeological receptors in that location. Beyond those areas, for example in

open areas such as car parks and yards, archaeological survival is predicted to be

better.

Receptors and Receptor Sensitivity: Building 9

The potential occurrence of below-ground archaeological receptors and their

sensitivities on the Building 9 Site is presented in Table 11.5. The assessment is



Building 9: Effects During Construction

No nationally significant archaeological receptors lie within 250m of the Building 9

Site. Despite being situated within a Local Area of Special Archaeological

Significance: ‘Area 15 Hendon: The Burrows, Parson Street, Hendon Place and

Golders Green Road’ as defined by the LBB (LPA), there is low potential for non-

designated archaeological receptors within the confines of the Building 9 Site due to

extensive truncation across the bulk of the Site in the recent past.

The Proposed Development within the confines of the Building 9 Site includes the

demolition of the former Medical Clinic and 1973 rear library extension and erection

of a four-storey teaching block including east and west connections to Hendon

Library and Hendon Town Hall Annex. Although the final foundation design has not

yet been finalised, the proposed building is not anticipated to possess a basement

storey, while the project’s structural engineer has advised that the foundations are

likely to be piled.

Any below-ground works associated with this, for example foundations or service

runs, would cause permanent, direct impacts upon any surviving archaeological

receptors, however this is mitigated by the fact that the bulk of the Site was

previously subject to truncation in the recent past, which will have removed most or

all archaeological receptors.

An evaluation of the predicted direct impacts and subsequent nature, scale and

significance effects of the Construction Phase of the Proposed Development upon

archaeological receptors within the Building 9 Site has been undertaken and is

reported in Table 11.8.


No direct impacts to archaeological receptors are anticipated during the Operational

Phase of the development within the Building 9 Site.

The continued presence of below-ground elements of the Proposed Development

during the Operational Phase could induce ongoing, long-term changes in ground

conditions, for example hydrological changes or oxidation reactions, that could

cause indirect, permanent impacts in the form of the gradual deterioration of any

archaeological receptors in the vicinity of the Building 9 Site (beyond the site

boundary). This is, however, deemed unlikely given the hydrological conditions

induced by the free-draining geology. Indirect effects on known below-ground non-

designated archaeological receptors surviving outside the Building 9 Site are

therefore deemed to be negligible (not significant) for the Operational Phase.

In summary, the scale of effect of the Operational Phase of the Building 9 Site on

below-ground archaeological receptors of all periods will be non-existent for direct

effects and permanent but negligible for indirect effects (not significant).

Ravensfield and Fenella Centre: Effects During Construction

Despite sitting to the immediate east of a Local Area of Special Archaeological


Golders Green Road’ as defined by the LBB (LPA), there is low potential for non-

designated archaeological receptors within untruncated sections of the Ravensfield

and Fenella Centre Site due to the nature of known historic land use and known

distributions of archaeological receptors in the vicinity of the Site.

The Proposed Development within the confines of the Ravensfield and Fenella

Centre Site includes the demolition of the existing buildings (Ravensfield House,

Fenella Building, nos. 1–3 Burroughs Parade and 3 Egerton Gardens) and the

erection of a building with a part 4, 6 and 7 storey block and freestanding 5 storey

rotunda. This will be constructed over the cleared site and the existing car park and


receptors surviving either inside or outside the Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site

are therefore negligible (not significant) for the Operational Phase and are not

considered further.

In summary, the scale of effect of the Operational Phase of the Ravensfield and

Fenella Centre Site on below-ground archaeological receptors of all periods will be

non-existent for direct effects and permanent but negligible for indirect effects (not

significant).

Meritage Centre: Effects During Construction

The Meritage Centre Site lies within a Local Area of Special Archaeological


Golders Green Road’ as defined by the LBB (LPA)’. In keeping with this there is

variable potential for non-designated archaeological receptors within untruncated

sections of the Site, ranging from low to high, based upon the nature of known

historic land use and known distributions of archaeological receptors in the vicinity

of the Site (Table 10).

The Proposed Development within the confines of the Meritage Centre Site consists

of the demolition of existing structures; Meritage Centre, nos. 32–46 Church End,

nos. 28–30 Church End, nos. 2–6 Church Terrace, nos.13–21 Prince of Wales Close,

(also known as 13–21 Church End), followed by the erection of 4 blocks ranging over

two, three and four storeys comprising 181 x purpose built student accommodation

units, 33 purpose-built shared living accommodation units and 1 x C2 Unit (125 sqm),

Health and Wellbeing Centre under Use Class E (470 sqm), including 7 x blue badge

parking spaces and 6 x car parking spaces. Although the final foundation design has

not yet been finalised, the proposed building is not anticipated to possess a

basement storey, while the project’s structural engineer has advised that the

foundations are likely to be piled.


effects on known below-ground non-designated archaeological receptors surviving

either inside or outside the Meritage Centre Site are therefore deemed negligible

(not significant) for the Construction Phase.

In summary, the scale of direct effects of the Construction Phase of the Meritage

Centre Site on below-ground archaeological receptors will be permanent but minor

for Bronze and Iron Age receptors (not significant) and permanent and minor to

moderate for all other periods (significant). The scale of indirect effects of the

Construction Phase will be permanent but negligible for all periods (not significant).

Meritage Centre: Effects Once the Proposed Development is Operational

The Operational Phase of the Proposed Development could induce ongoing

permanent or temporary changes in ground conditions on the Meritage Centre Site,

for example hydrological changes or oxidation reactions. These could cause indirect,

permanent impacts upon any surviving archaeological receptors both within and in

the vicinity of the Site due to a permanent or temporary change in preservation

conditions. However, given the free-draining nature of the geology, such changes

are unlikely. Indirect effects on known below ground non-designated archaeological

receptors surviving either inside or outside the Meritage Centre Site are therefore

negligible (not significant) for the Operational Phase.

In summary, the scale of effect of the Operational Phase of the Meritage Centre Site

on below-ground archaeological receptors of all periods will be non-existent for direct

effects and permanent but negligible for indirect effects (not significant).

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation During Construction: Building 9 Site

On the Building 9 Site, direct and indirect impacts of the Construction and

Operational Phases of the Proposed Development were assessed as not significant


for archaeological receptors of all periods. That said, comments from Historic

England on the DBA submitted in November 2020 (Appendix 11A) have been

received (Historic England ref: CLO32641) 115. They indicate that a review of existing

impact against proposed plans (once known) would be needed in order to determine

if any mitigation would be warranted. If mitigation is needed then a watching brief

may be the most appropriate strategy.

Mitigation During Operation: Building 9 Site

The scale of direct and indirect Operational Phase effects was assessed as not

significant on the Building 9 Site. As such, no mitigation is required for the

Operational Phase.

Mitigation During Construction: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site

On the Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site, direct and indirect impacts of the

Construction and Operational Phases of the Proposed Development were assessed

as not significant for archaeological receptors of all periods. That said, Historic

England have indicated (Historic England ref: CLO32600) that a detailed

assessment of development impact (when available) should be carried out in order

to determine what further archaeological works are required 116 . If deemed

necessary this would most likely comprise an evaluation to test archaeological

potential and survival in order to determine if further mitigation is warranted.

Mitigation During Operation: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site


significant on the Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site. As such, no mitigation is

required for the Operational Phase.

115 Pre-application advice issued by Laura O’Gorman, planning officer at Historic England (GLAAS) to Mills Whipp Projects Ltd regarding a pre-application consultation for the Hendon Hub Regeneration: Building 9 Site, 8 December 2020. 116 Pre-application advice issued by Laura O’Gorman, planning officer at Historic England (GLAAS) to Mills Whipp Projects Ltd regarding a pre-application consultation for the Hendon Hub Regeneration: Ravensfield and Fenella Centre Site, 2 December 2020.


Mitigation During Construction: Meritage Centre Site

On the Meritage Centre Site, the scale of Construction Phase direct effects upon

archaeological receptors pertaining to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Roman through

to post-mediaeval periods were assessed as significant.

From the evidence examined during the preparation of this document, there is no

indication that archaeological deposits are present on the Meritage Centre Site that

merit preservation in situ.

Due to the shallow nature of the archaeological resource in the area more generally,

areas of the Meritage Centre Site that were subject to truncation in the recent past

do not require mitigation as any archaeological receptors in those locations will have

been destroyed. However, untruncated areas of the Meritage Centre Site that will be

impacted upon by the Proposed Development will require archaeological mitigation

in advance of redevelopment, as any below-ground works would remove any

archaeological receptors in full or in part. The scale of Construction Phase direct

effects upon archaeological receptors pertaining to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and

Roman through to post-mediaeval periods are therefore assessed as significant.

However, once the mitigation measures proposed herein are applied, all

Construction Phase direct effects to archaeological receptors of all periods are not

significant.

Appropriate mitigation would take the form of an archaeological trial trenching

exercise, the specifics of which would need to be agreed in advance with Historic

England GLAAS and outlined in an approved written scheme of investigation (WSI).

The evaluation would investigate evidence for all periods. Should the evaluation yield

a positive result, a programme of further archaeological investigation would be

agreed with GLAAS if required.


These conclusions accord with pre-application recommendations previously set out

by Laura O’Gorman of Historic England’s Greater London Archaeological Advisory

Service (GLAAS).117



significant on the Meritage Centre Site. As such, no mitigation is required for the

Operational Phase.


The residual impacts arising from the Proposed Development are summarised in

Table 11.11 above. All residual construction and operational phase impacts of the

Proposed Development have been collectively assessed. It can be concluded that,

once the above mitigation measures are applied, there is no finding of significant

effects of the Construction and Operational Phases of the Proposed Development

upon archaeological receptors of all periods.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

Selected sites have been assessed with reference to the archaeological baseline

data and the potential of any shared resources and receptors which may experience

cumulative effects has been considered. Archaeological deposits and their relative

survival are unique to each property on the Hendon Plateau and in the case of all of

the sites addressed (see Chapter 2 for a list of developments considered and for

those scoped out of the Environmental Impact Assessment) archaeological impacts

have either been mitigated, are in the process of being mitigated or will be mitigated

in the future. Consequently, the cumulative effects of the agreed list of cumulative

117 Pre-application advice issued by Laura O’Gorman, planning officer at Historic England (GLAAS) to Mills Whipp Projects Ltd regarding a pre-application consultation for the Hendon Hub Regeneration: Meritage Centre, 8 December 2020.


developments have been assessed and have been found not to lead to incremental

changes that would result in a finding of significant cumulative effects.


12 BUILT HERITAGE, TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

Introduction

Montagu Evans LLP has been appointed to undertake this ES Chapter to assess the

likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Development on built

heritage and townscape and visual amenity. The assessment has been carried out

in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the EIA Regulations’) and in line with

other relevant legislation, planning policy and guidance. A summary of the

Legislation and Policy Context is set out below.

The (built) heritage assessment considers the heritage value of heritage assets,

(including their setting) and the impact of the Proposed Development upon that

heritage value. This analysis is in line with the statutory provisions set out at Sections

16(2) and Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)

Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’). These provisions relate to the direct impact on listed

buildings and conservation areas directly.

The heritage assessment has identified heritage assets in the area surrounding the

Site which may experience an effect to their heritage value arising from a change to

their setting as a result of the Proposed Development. This analysis is in line with

the statutory provisions set out at Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the 1990 Act’).

The townscape assessment considers the Proposed Development within its urban

context, including the buildings, the relationships between them, the different types


of urban open spaces, including green spaces and the relationship between

buildings and open spaces. The townscape assessment is based on 5 townscape

character areas which are identified at baseline stage on the basis of shared

characteristics.

The visual assessment considers the impact of the Proposed Development upon

visual receptors. The assessment relates to how people will be affected by changes

in views and visual amenity at different places, including publicly accessible locations.

Visual receptors are always people (although usually visual receptors are defined

according to use e.g. residential, business, road, footpath etc.), rather than

landscape features.

The assessment is informed by 20 Accurate Visual Representations (‘AVRs’ or

‘verified views’). The location of the viewpoints has been informed by architectural

and historic accounts of the area, an appraisal of the existing Site and surroundings,

and relevant policy designations. The location of these viewpoints has been agreed

with the Council during the pre-application and EIA Scoping process.

This chapter is support by a series of technical appendices comprising:

• Appendix 12.1: Meritage Centre Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment

• Appendix 12.2: Building B9 Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Appendix 12.3: Fenella and Ravensfield Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact

Assessment

Legislation and Policy Context

This section sets out the relevant planning policy context for the redevelopment of

the Site, including national and local guidance and other material considerations.

This section also sets out the context of the assessment process.

Legislative Framework


The applicable legislative framework to this assessment includes the following:

• The Town and Country Planning Act 1990; • The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; and • The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the 1990

Act”).

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

The statutory duties of the decision-maker, when considering applications which

affect designated heritage receptors, are set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings

and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This requires local planning authorities to have

special regard to the desirability of preserving the special interest of listed buildings,

conservation areas and their respective settings.

The Proposed development will directly affect the listed library and the Meritage

Centre is situated partially within the Church End Conservation Area.

There are also statutorily listed buildings within the study area which may experience

a change to their setting, and therefore heritage value, as a result of the Proposed

Development.

In this case, the relevant statutory provisions are Section 16(2) of the 1990 Act which

states:

In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Also relevant is Section 66(1) of the 1990 Act, which states:

‘In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural and historical interest which it possesses.’


And Section 72(1), which states:

‘In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any [functions under or by virtue of] any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’

Having regard to the above, the statutory provision is satisfied if development

proposals preserve the setting of a listed building. The meaning of preservation in

this context is taken to be the avoidance of harm.

Development Plan

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 stipulates that

where in making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to

the development plan, and the determination must be made in accordance with that

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The following documents comprise the statutory development plan:

• The London Plan 2021; • Core Strategy DPD (September 2012); and • Development Management Policies DPD (September 2012). • Barnet’s Local Plan replaces the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (adopted in

May 2006).

London Plan (2021)

The following policies of the London Plan are relevant to the assessment of the built

heritage, townscape and visual impact of the Proposed Development.

Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) states that:

A All development must make the best use of land by following a design-led approach that optimises the capacity of sites, including site allocations. Optimising site capacity means ensuring that development is of the most appropriate form and land use for the site. The design-led approach requires consideration of design options to determine the most appropriate form of development that responds to a site’s context and capacity for growth, and


existing and planned supporting infrastructure capacity (as set out in Policy D2 Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities), and that best delivers the requirements set out in Part D.

B Higher density developments should generally be promoted in locations that are well connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling, in accordance with Policy D2 Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities. Where these locations have existing areas of high density buildings, expansion of the areas should be positively considered by Boroughs where appropriate. This could also include expanding Opportunity Area boundaries where appropriate.

C In other areas, incremental densification should be actively encouraged by Boroughs to achieve a change in densities in the most appropriate way. This should be interpreted in the context of Policy H2 Small sites.

D Development proposals should: Form and layout

1) enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions;

2) encourage and facilitate active travel with convenient and inclusive pedestrian and cycling routes, crossing points, cycle parking, and legible entrances to buildings, that are aligned with peoples’ movement patterns and desire lines in the area

3) be street-based with clearly defined public and private environments

4) facilitate efficient servicing and maintenance of buildings and the public realm, as well as deliveries, that minimise negative impacts on the environment, public realm and vulnerable road users.’

Policy D4 (Delivering Good Design) states:

‘A Masterplans and design codes should be used to help bring forward development and ensure it delivers high quality design and place-making based on the requirements set out in Part B of Policy D3 Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach.

B Where appropriate, visual, environmental and movement modelling/ assessments should be undertaken to analyse potential design options for an area, site or development proposal. These models, particularly 3D virtual reality and other interactive digital models, should, where possible, be used to inform


plan-making and decision-taking, and to engage Londoners in the planning process. Design scrutiny

C Design and access statements submitted with development proposals should demonstrate that the proposal meets the design requirements of the London Plan.

D The design of development proposals should be thoroughly scrutinised by borough planning, urban design, and conservation officers, utilising the analytical tools set out in Part B, local evidence, and expert advice where appropriate. In addition, boroughs and applicants should make use of the design review process to assess and inform design options early in the planning process. Development proposals referable to the Mayor must have undergone at least one design review early on in their preparation before a planning application is made, or demonstrate that they have undergone a local borough process of design scrutiny, based on the principles set out in Part E if they:

1) include a residential component that exceeds 350 units per hectare; or

2) propose a building defined as a tall building by the borough (see Policy D9 Tall buildings), or that is more than 30m in height where there is no local definition of a tall building.’

Policy HC1 (Heritage conservation and growth) states at part ‘C’ that:

‘Development proposals affecting heritage assets, and their settings, should conserve their significance, by being sympathetic to the assets’ significance and appreciation within their surroundings. The cumulative impacts of incremental change from development on heritage assets and their settings should also be actively managed. Development proposals should avoid harm and identify enhancement opportunities by integrating heritage considerations early on in the design process.’

The Site does not appear within any strategic views identified within the LVMF. HC3

(Strategic and Local Views) states at part ‘G’:

‘Boroughs should clearly identify local views in their Local Plans and strategies. Boroughs are advised to use the principles of Policy HC4 London View Management Framework for the designation and management of local views. Where a local view crosses borough boundaries, the relevant boroughs should work collaboratively to designate and manage the view.’


Development Management Policies DPD (September 2012)

The Development Management Policies DPD sets out the policy framework for

decision-making on planning applications. The policies pertinent to heritage and

townscape considerations are presented below.

The relevant parts of Policy DM01 (Protecting Barnet’s character and amenity) state

that:

• All development should represent high quality design which demonstrates high levels of environmental awareness and contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation;

• Development proposals be based on an understanding of local characteristics. Proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets;

• Development proposals should retain outdoor amenity space having regard to its character.

The latter sections of the policy refer to landscaping, stating that:

• Development proposals will be required to include hard and soft landscaping that: • is well laid out in terms of access, car parking and landscaping • considers the impact of hardstandings on character • achieve a suitable visual setting for the building • provide an appropriate level of new habitat including tree and shrub planting • make a positive contribution to the surrounding area • contributes to biodiversity including the retention of existing wildlife habitat and

trees • adequately protects existing trees and their root systems.

Policy DM06 (Barnet’s heritage and conservation) states that proposals affecting

Barnet’s heritage assets should demonstrate accordance with the NPPF and seeks

to retain buildings which are locally-listed or positively contribute to CAs. The policy

also states that:

• All heritage assets will be protected in line with their significance.


• All development will have regard to the local historic context. • Development proposals must preserve or enhance the character and appearance

of 16 Conservation Areas in Barnet.

Policy DM06 states that proposals should demonstrate how the benefits of the

development outweigh any harm caused to the heritage asset.

Barnet Core Strategy (2012)

Policy CS5 (Protecting and enhancing Barnet’s character to create high quality

places) requires that development in Barnet respects local context and distinctive

local character creating places and buildings of high quality design. With regard to

heritage and character, it states:

‘We will work with partners to proactively protect and enhance Barnet’s heritage,

including conservation areas, listed buildings, locally listed buildings, registered

parks and gardens, scheduled monuments, areas of archaeological significance and

London’s only battlefield site.

We will require proposals within or affecting the setting of heritage assets to provide

a site assessment which demonstrates how the proposal will respect and enhance

the asset. Policy CS13 addresses the adaptation of heritage assets to reduce carbon

emissions and ensure efficient use of natural resources.

We will ensure through our programme of Conservation Area Character Appraisals

that these areas are protected and enhanced.

We will ensure through our Green Infrastructure SPD that the key characteristics of

Barnet’s landscape (Barnet Plateau and Finchley Ridge) are protected and

enhanced.

The Barnet Characterisation Study forms the baseline for the identification of places with a

consistent and coherent architectural character. Within the typologies identified in the


Characterisation Study we will through our Development Management Policies DPD and

Residential Design Guidance SPD develop a framework to protect and enhance those high

quality suburbs in Barnet not protected by Conservation Area designations.’

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2021)

The new NPPF was republished in July 2021 and supersedes previous national

planning guidance contained in the previous NPPF (2012), NPPF (2019) and various

Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements. The NPPF sets out the

government’s approach to planning maters and it is a material consideration in the

determination of planning applications.

Design

Chapter 12 outlines the policy regarding design. At paragraph 126 it is emphasised

that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places

in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities’.

Paragraph 130 states planning policies and decisions should ensure that

developments:

• will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

• are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

• are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovating or change (such as increased densities);

• establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;


• optimise the potential of the Site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

• create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

Paragraph 134 promotes sustainable development and appropriate design and

states that significant weight should be given to:

a) development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on

design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning

documents such as design guides and codes; and/or

b) outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or

help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in

with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

Taken together, it is clear that Paragraphs 126, 130 and 134 support the creative

design of buildings incorporating the highest standards of sustainable design and

technology. Thus the NPPF encourages LPAs to look for opportunities to permit

development which promotes high quality design incorporating the highest level of

sustainable construction and operation.

Heritage

Chapter 16 of the NPPF sets out the policies relating to the conservation and

enhancement of the historic environment. At the outset, paragraph 194 specifies

that:

“In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be


proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.”

The NPPF defines significance as:

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

Paragraph 199 states that:

“When considering the impact of a Proposed Development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.”

In essence, great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

Conservation is defined as ‘managing change’.

Paragraph 202 has regard to less than substantial harm. It states that:

“Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.”

Similarly, in relation to non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 203 states that:

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

Emerging Policy Barney Draft Local Plan (Reg. 18) (Jan. 2020)

At the time of writing, Barnet’s website states that they are updating the Regulation

18 draft of the emerging Local Plan in advance of preparing the Regulation 19


version. Regulation 22 (submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State) is

anticipated to take place in autumn 2021.

Emerging Policy CDH01 (Promoting High Quality Design) states:

‘a) in order to make the most efficient use of land residential proposals must be

developed at an optimum density. A design-led approach to determine capacity

should deliver an optimum density. This approach should consider local context,

accessibility by walking and cycling and existing and planned public transport as well

as the capacity of infrastructure.

b) all new development should be of a high architectural and urban design quality

and be in compliance with the Residential Design Guide SPG and the Sustainable

Design and Construction SPD.

The Council will expect development proposals to:

i. Respond sensitively to the distinctive local character, building form, patterns

of development, scale, massing, roof form and height of the existing context.

ii. Use materials of a suitable quality and appearance to respect local character

and setting.

iii. Ensure attractive, safe and, where appropriate, vibrant streets and active

frontages that provide visual interest, particularly at street level. […]’

The salient parts of emerging Policy CDH08 (Barnet’s Heritage) state:

B) development that leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a

designated heritage asset will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,

including where appropriate, securing the optimum viable use. All development

proposals affecting the significance of a designated heritage asset should:


i. have regard to the local historic context.

ii. Have regard to the character, appearance, scale, mass, height, materials, urban

grain and layout of existing buildings, streets and spaces.

iii. Retain architectural detailing and traditional features, including historic shopfronts,

which contribute positively to the appearance of a building or an area.

iv. Be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment and any harm to a designated

heritage asset shall require clear and convincing justification.

v. In exceptional circumstances, where the loss of any heritage asset is permitted,

the Council will require a programme of works to ensure the new development will

proceed after the loss has occurred.

c) Proposals for the demolition of non-designated heritage assets (including locally

listed buildings) will be resisted. The effect of an application on the significance of

an asset will be taken into account in determining the application and the scale of

any harm or loss will need to be balanced against the significance of the heritage

asset.

d) Development proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets should

conserve, reveal and enhance the significance of the assets and their settings, as

well as comply with part (b) above.

e) The Council may identify any potential non-designated heritage asset as a

consideration of development proposals.’

Material Considerations

Here it is important to state that the importance of conserving the significance of the

heritage assets both where they are affected directly and where the lie within the


setting of the Site has been fundamental to the development and design approach

of the Proposed Development.

In addition to legislation and policy, the assessment has taken into consideration

relevant planning guidance and any material considerations, including:

• National Planning Practice Guidance (online); • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition (GLVIA)

(2013); • An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014); • Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual impact assessment:

Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11; • Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing

Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England, 2015);

• Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2017);

• Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 4: Tall Buildings (2015);

• The Burroughs Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (2012); and

• Hendon Church End Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (2012).

Weight to be attached to the desirability of preserving the special interest of a listed building

In preparing our analysis we are mindful of the considerable weight attached to the

preservation or enhancement of the setting of heritage assets, which was clarified

by the Court of Appeal judgement in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy vs East

Northamptonshire et al [2014]. The Court held that in enacting section 66(1) of the

1990 Act Parliament intended that the desirability of preserving the settings of listed

buildings should not simply be given careful consideration by the decision-maker for

the purpose of deciding whether there would be some harm, but should be given

"considerable importance and weight" when the decision-maker carries out the

balancing exercise.


Substantial harm

The Bedford Judgement 120 clarified how the decision maker should consider

whether a development would lead to substantial or less than substantial harm. Of

particular relevance to the approach to determining this application is the below

paragraph:

“25. Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced.”

Thus, the courts have made clear that substantial harm is a very high test, such that

the significance of an asset would have to be vitiated all together or very much

reduced. We make clear in our assessment that the proposals do not meet this high

test and accordingly cannot be considered to cause substantial harm. That being

said, this judgement is helpful as a guide when assessing the degree of harm within

the less than substantial category.

Clear and convincing justification

Paragraph 200 allows that the strong presumption against harm can be rebutted on

the basis of a ‘clear and convincing justification’. This phrase is sometimes taken to

signal the requirement for an options analysis or explanation based in viability.

The judgment in Pugh v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3 (Admin) has clarified that the clear

and convincing justification is no more than the tests set out in paragraphs 133 and

134 (now 201 and 202 of the 2021 NPPF), thus effectively the balance of benefits.

It is only in cases of substantial harm that one needs to show works are necessary

to deliver public benefits.

120 Bedford Borough Council vs Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2013] EWHC 2847


“Internal Heritage Balance”

The “internal heritage balance” is derived from an interpretation of a Court of Appeal

judgment that considered paragraph 66 (1) known as Palmer ([2016] EWCA Civ

1061).

Practically this has meant that paragraphs 201 or 202 would only be engaged if there

was “net” harm after the internal heritage balance (or weighing heritage harms and

heritage benefits). The approach has been accepted at many appeals by all parties

but not at others.

The recent Court of Appeal judgement known as Bramshill ([2021] EWCA Civ 320)

found that the Palmer judgement does not lead to an “internal heritage balance” as

a matter of course [71]. There are different ways that a decision maker can apply the

balance of harm versus benefits [74], and some of these are summarised in the

judgment [78].

Another, and the most recent planning appeal that considered this issue of the

approach to the balancing act is the Whitechapel Bell Foundry appeal (refs.

APP/E5900/V/20/3245430 and APP/E5900/V/20/3245432). That decision confirmed

that the Palmer approach of an “internal heritage balance” is a legitimate one to

follow in undertaking the balancing act, confirmed by both the Inspector reporting on

the case and the Secretary of State i.e. That as long as the great weight provision is

applied, either approach is valid.

Emerging Policy Barnet Draft Local Plan (January 2020)

The LB Barnet recently published its Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 document) for

public consultation. The Regulation 19 document is scheduled for publication in

Autumn 2020. Due to its early stage in the adoption process, the Barnet Draft Local

Plan is considered to be of limited weight.


Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria


Proposed Development in relation to built heritage, townscape and visual impact.

The method is the product of legislation, policy and best practice guidance as set

out above. This section describes the overarching assessment framework and the

different methodologies which apply to heritage, townscape and visual receptors.

Whilst every ES should provide a full factual description of the development, the

emphasis at Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations (2017) is on the main or

‘significant’ environmental effects to which a development is likely to give rise to. The

ES should be proportionate and not be any longer than is necessary to assess

properly those potential likely effects.

Scoping

This assessment is based on the EIA Scoping Report which was submitted to the

local planning authority and agreed in the Scoping Opinion provided by LB Barnet

on 16th July 2021.

The EIA Scoping process identified the heritage, townscape and visual receptors

which would be assessed in the ES.

Site observations, a manual desk-based review of OS maps, characterisation

studies and relevant heritage receptors were used to determine the scope of

assessment through a study area. The study area, often determined on the basis of

a radius, has been informed by building locations and heights, topography and

townscape features, and an understanding of the scale of the Proposed

Development.

A study area of 500m from the Site boundary has been identified for heritage,

townscape and visual receptors. Site surveys and accurate visual representations


support this study area radius and have enabled heritage receptors to be scoped out

of further assessment as they confirm the Proposed Development would not be

discernible within the setting of these assets.

The heritage receptor plan at Appendix 4 shows all of the receptors identified in the

study area. This includes:

• All designated heritage receptors, including:

o Listed buildings;

o Conservation areas;

o Registered Parks and Gardens;

o Scheduled Ancient Monuments;

• Non-designated heritage receptors within a 500m radius of the Site boundary

(including locally-listed buildings and any other feature identified as having some

local heritage interest during design development or pre-application consultation);

and

• Townscape character areas.

The Viewpoint Plan is also included at Appendix 4. The viewpoints to be assessed

were agreed with the Council through the pre-application process.

Site Visits

A Site survey of the baseline situation was undertaken by Montagu Evans during

summer 2020 to understand the immediate setting of the Site, the setting of the

surrounding heritage receptors, the townscape character and appearance, and key

viewpoints.

Assessment Methodology

The overarching assessment framework for all topics follows a four step process

which are discussed below:


1. Baseline Assessment of Value; 2. Assessment of Sensitivity; 3. Assessment of Magnitude; and 4. Assessment of Likely Effects

Baseline Assessment of Value

Heritage

The term ‘heritage receptor’ is used within this assessment to describe a designated

heritage asset (e.g. World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building,

Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or

Conservation Area) or non-designated heritage assets (such as locally listed

buildings).

This ES chapter does not assess below-ground archaeological receptors, including

Scheduled Monuments which have no upstanding remains.

Paragraph 194 of the NPPF states:

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

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

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

This is supported by Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2:

Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (2015).

Value is assessed against the criteria contained in Table 2.1 below. The assessment

of heritage value is ‘graded’ from Exceptional to Very Low. It is agreed that World


Heritage Sites and Grade I listed buildings are of ‘exceptional’ and ‘particularly

important’ interest; therefore these are generally afforded a higher heritage value.

This differentiation is best summarised by the drafting of paragraph 194 of the NPPF,

which states that the:

level of detail [to describe the significance of heritage assets] should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.

Thus, the value ‘grading’ of heritage assets is appropriate. Non-designated heritage

receptors are recognised as having local value. Due and proportionate regard has

been had to all heritage receptors identified.

Where a proposal may have an effect on the surroundings in which the heritage

asset is experienced, a qualitative assessment is made of whether, how and to what

degree setting contributes to the significance of heritage assets. Setting is defined

in the NPPF as:

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

The assessment of setting is informed by the check-list of potential attributes outlined

by the Historic England guidance document Historic Environment Good Practice

Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) (hereafter ‘GPA3’).

GPA3 identifies five steps towards assessing the implications of the Proposed

Development which may affect the setting of heritage assets (and is consistent with

other guidance):

a. Identify the assets affected; b. Assessing the contribution setting makes to significance; c. Assessing the effect of the Proposed Development; d. Maximising enhancement and minimising harm; and e. Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.


(Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment,

2013) (‘GLVIA3’). The assessment has regard to the methodology set out in An

Approach to Landscape Character Assessment (2014) prepared by Natural England.

The two components of townscape and visual assessment are:

1. The assessment of townscape effects: assessing effects on the townscape as a resource in its own right; and

2. The assessment of visual effects: assessing effects on specific views and on the general visual amenity experienced by people.

Townscape

Townscape is defined in GLIVIA3 as the “built-up area, including the buildings, the

relationships between them, the different types of urban open spaces, including

green spaces, and the relationship between buildings and open spaces”.

The initial assessment defines the distinct and recognisable patterns of elements, or

characteristics that make one area different from another, rather than better or worse.

This process, defined as townscape character assessment, is the process of

identifying and describing variation in the character of townscape.

The assessment is informed by both field survey and desk-based research of

secondary sources, with reference to existing character assessments where

applicable.

The assessment allows the description of character areas/types, their key

characteristics and for them to be mapped with boundaries. The mapped boundaries

suggest a sharp change from one townscape area. On Site, however, this often

represents a zone of transition. Townscape character areas are identified and

assessed according to townscape receptor value (in relation to their built form,

materials, maintenance, and statutory and non-statutory designations), using criteria

contained in Table 12.2 below.


Frequent dominant detracting features; and Disturbed or derelict land requires treatment.

Townscape Receptor Value Criteria

Visual

Visual impact assessment relates to how people will be affected by changes in views

and visual amenity at different places, including publicly accessible locations. Visual

receptors are always people, although usually visual receptors are defined according

to use e.g. residential, business, road, footpath etc., rather than landscape features.

The aim of the visual baseline is to establish the area in which the development may

be visible, the different groups of people who may experience views of the

development, the places where they will be affected and the nature of the views and

visual amenity at those points.

The baseline study identifies individuals and/or defined groups of people within the

area who will be affected by changes in the views, ‘visual receptors’. The following

visual receptors are identified by GLVIA3 as being likely to be the most susceptible

to change:

• Residents and other frequent users of the area; • People, whether residents or visitors, who are engaged in outdoor recreation,

including use of public rights of way, attractions or those whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape and on particular views; and

• Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents in the area.

It should be noted that the assessment does not comprise a ‘residential amenity

assessment’, which considers private viewpoints from residential properties. This is

separate from townscape and visual assessment (refer to GLVIA3, paragraph 6.17).


Assessment viewpoints are identified based on a comprehensive review of the

surrounding area, including the following criteria:

• Heritage receptors; and/or • Townscape character; and/or • Where the development may be prominent; and/or • Be visible from concentrations of residential areas; and/or • Open spaces (parkland, publicly accessible space); and/or • Potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. schools); and/or • Accessibility to the public; and/or • The viewing direction, distance and elevation; and/or • Townscape and transport nodes.

The identification of viewpoints also considers any viewpoints identified by the local

planning authorities or other relevant bodies and, in London, strategic views as

determined by the adopted London View Management Framework (LVMF) (2012).

The visual assessment is supported by Accurate Visual Representations (AVRs)

which provide the basis for the assessment of a Proposed Development and its

effect on the identified views.

The objective of a photomontage is to simulate the likely visual changes that would

result from a Proposed Development, and to produce printed images of a size and

resolution sufficient to match the perspective in the same view in the field.

Accurate visual representation is two-dimensional and cannot capture the

complexity of the visual experience. It is an approximation of the three-dimensional

visual experience the observer would receive on Site. Neither do they capture

transient significant effects arising from noise or traffic on perception, or that wider

range of expectations and associations that anyone in an urban scene may have.

Details of the methodology for preparation of the AVRs is set out at Appendix 1.0 to

the three HTVIAs at Appendices 1-3 to this document.


on the combined effects of all the past, present and future proposals together with the new project

This assessment takes the first approach, which is to focus on the additional effects

of the proposed development on top of the cumulative baseline. It is considered that

this approach is best suited to an urban environment, in which the cumulative effects

between the proposed development and other cumulative schemes may be complex

(including situations in which the effect of the proposed development could be

lessened or removed entirely by cumulative schemes) and because, as also

acknowledged in the GLVIA3, it may not be considered reasonable to assess the

effect of many complex schemes other than the proposed development in the

manner required by the ‘combined effects’ approach.

Of the schemes identified, none are likely to have any cumulative effects on heritage,

townscape or visual receptors due their scale or location. This is because there is

no intervisibility between the Proposed Development and identified schemes for

cumulative assessment

A cumulative impact is also undertaken in relation to those aspects of the Proposed

Development that have been scoped out of the EIA at the following sites. These are

the subject of separate planning applications which have not yet been determined.

• Fuller Street Car Park; • Prince of Wales Estate Landscape Improvements; • Daniel Almshouses Landscape Improvements • Linear Woodland landscape improvements • Former Quinta Club, Mays Lane.

Consultation

The Applicant has engaged in pre-application consultation with the Council and

Historic England and the scheme has evolved to address comments raised with

respect to heritage and townscape impacts. Details of how the Proposed


Development has evolved through iterative design are set out in Chapter 4

“Alternatives”.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures proposed to prevent, reduce or offset any significant likely

adverse effects have been identified and developed as part of the pre-application

design process. The primary mitigation measures have become embedded into the

project design, commonly referred to as embedded mitigation. The mitigation arising

from design development and consultation responses is also identified where

appropriate in the assessment.

The likely effects of the Proposed Development include embedded mitigation. As a

result, there is no requirement for additional mitigation and thus likely residual effects

remain the same as the likely effects, unless otherwise stated.

Climate Change

The likely effects of the Proposed Development are defined under the current climate

conditions, which may alter under a future climate scenario. The EIA Regulations

require that the change in impact magnitude and a receptor’s ‘vulnerability’ (i.e.

susceptibility or resilience to change) are considered in respect of a future climate

condition.

The vulnerability of the receptors to climate conditions has been assessed according

to the definitions provided in the guidance, and it has been judged that all of the

heritage, townscape and visual receptors have low vulnerability.

The likely projected future conditions for each of temperature, precipitation, wind

speed and cloud cover have been considered. It is considered that the magnitude of

impact and resultant nature and scale of the effects of the Proposed Development

during the operational phase will not be changed under the future climate conditions.


Overall, the likely effects of the Proposed Development are unlikely to change as a

result of climate change.

Baseline Conditions

This section sets out the effects of the Proposed Development, cross referring to the

three HTVIAs where relevant. These relate to each of the three sites (Meritage

Centre, Building 9 and Fenella and Ravensfield). For clarity, this ES considers the

development as a whole.

Historic Development

An overview of the historic development of Hendon is set out at Section 4.0 of

Appendices 1-3. For clarity, this is not repeated here.

Built Heritage Baseline

The identification of heritage assets has been based on the methodology set out in

Section 7.2. The search included all listed buildings, conservation areas, registered

parks and non-designated heritage assets within the study area. Professional

judgement has been used to select those which may experience change to their

setting. Hendon Library is included also owing to the direct effect resulting from the

works to Building 9.

The heritage receptors are identified below with a short description.

Listed Buildings St Mary’s Church (grade II*)

The church is listed Grade II* (NHLE no 1359029) and can be assigned very high

heritage value. This derives from its overall heritage interest under a number of

headings.

The commanding hilltop location of the Church is suggestive of a very long history

of human occupation. The presence of Norman fabric in the church indicates an


early date for the building, which may well be a replacement of a pre-Conquest

structure. The churchyard has been used for burials for a millennium or more.

Architectural: St Mary’s is of very high value for its surviving medieval fabric (dating

from the 13th and early 16th centuries) and also for the extensive enlargement of

1911-1915, designed by the distinguished church architect Temple Moore (1856-

1920), described in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as ‘England’s

leading ecclesiastical architect from the mid-Edwardian years’. In the words of The

Buildings of England. London 4: North (by Bridget Cherry and Nikolaus Pevsner,

1998, p157), ‘This addition, obviously the work of a sensitive as well as a bold

architect…[is] one of the rare cases in which a Gothic revival architect, by respecting

old work and adding frankly new work to it, has considerably enriched the original

effect.’

Artistic: the church is of high value for its fittings which have accumulated over time.

The items of highest aesthetic merit are the church monuments, some of them

created by noted masons of national renown, such as John Flaxman and Grinling

Gibbons (attributed).

Historical: St Mary’s has been the centre of the parish of Hendon for a millennium or

more. It reflects the progressive development of the community: it has been the place

of baptism, marriage and burial for parishioners, and some of the individuals are

recorded with monuments inside and outside the church. More generally, the church

is a very valuable as the sole reminder of the early centuries of the village’s history.

In historical terms, it possesses very high heritage value.

Heritage value: High

The assessment of heritage value is reached by applying the matrices at Section

7.2.


Setting and Group Value

The church is at the heart of the small group of historic buildings which form

Hendon’s historic core. The parish has undergone profound change since the mid-

19th century, and the church’s setting is characterised by the change brought about

by the encroachment of suburbanisation from the late 19th Century and then later

insensitive development in the late 20th Century close to its boundary. Thus the

wider setting of the church when experienced from the south is characterised by

change, and the appearance of this later development.

The church’s principal setting is that of its churchyard with its intact historic

boundaries. This retains a tranquil atmosphere. The churchyard is thickly planted in

areas, creating an enclosed setting for the church. There are some views of later

phases of development outside of the boundary in views out of the churchyard,

including the Meritage Centre. The most significant of these is the long view to the

north which retains a largely ‘rural’ character.

St Mary’s Churchyard

From outside the boundaries of the church, the western approach and entrance is

important, between No. 43 Church End and the Greyhound Pub. A visitor has a full

view of the form of the church, its Nave, southern Aisle, tower and church yard

vegetation. The approach from the east through the Church Yard from Church

Terrace makes a similarly positive contribution to the heritage value of the church.

The ensemble value of the church, with other listed or period buildings close by, is

high: the group is a coherent one, closely grouped together. Its value is compounded

by its hilltop location which makes the church visible from some distance away.

The ensemble value and inter-relationship between the other assets in church end

are principally experienced when approaching from the west on Church End. The


rising topography and open character of the approach and ‘reveal’ of the church

adds interest to the position of the church. The back drop to the latter stage of this

approach formed by the existing Meritage centre detracts slightly.

Views from the south along Church End are more substantially affected by the latter

stages of development. As set out above, this area has been subject to significant

change from the Victorian Era onwards. This would have had the effect of

substantially obscuring views of the church on the northward approach. .However,

the current late 20th Century development in this area detracts more significantly

from the setting of the church by forming an unattractive and obtrusive foreground

element that does not relate to the wider character of the view. Once a northbound

traveller passes the Meritage Centre, a viewer can view the full western entrance of

the church without incursion from the later 20th Century development (and thus

these closer views from the south make a more positive contribution to the heritage

value of the church.

In summary, the principal contribution made to the heritage value of the church is

contained within its immediate setting to the church yard, close views to the church

from the east and west approaches and approach from Greyhound Hill which allows

an appreciation of the ensemble value.

The heritage value of the church is somewhat harmed by later unsympathetic 20th

C development to its south in the form of the Meritage Centre within the development

Site.

The large churchyard is of very high heritage value. It provides the setting to the

church, and it possesses a large number of historic memorials, some of which are

of particular special interest. Nine are listed, each at Grade II. These are listed below,

with their NHLE number:

• Thomas Thatcher (1375652): early C18 headstone to south of south porch.


• Chest tomb (1375653): mid C18 tomb 15m south-east of east end of church. • John Haley (1375645): mid C18 tall monument of triangular form, 18m east of

church. • Philip Rundell mausoleum (1375649): late Georgian Egyptian-influenced

structure. • Henry Joynes (1375648): pedestal tomb of c1754 to the builder of Blenheim

Palace. • Susannah Frye (1375651): elaborate Baroque chest tomb north of church. • Sir Joseph Alyloffe (1375650): Gothick late C18 chest tomb north-east of church. • John Jones (1375647): repaired marble pedestal tomb north-east of church,

c.1720. • Conquest Jones (1375646): unusual 1770s chest east north-east of church.

Cumulatively, taken alongside the many other tombs, these memorials possess high

heritage value in terms of architectural, artistic and historical interest. They also

provide strong group value to the setting of St Mary’s church.

The contained churchyard clearly contributes to the heritage value of these assets

experienced in their original church yard setting.

Heritage value: Medium

Church Farm House (grade II*)

This Grade II* listed 17th century house (NHLE 1188513) is now used by the

University of Middlesex; it was previously a local museum (closed 2011). It is a

building of high heritage value as a fine example of a mid-17th century Middlesex

farm house. Such survivals are quite rare, and this one is of further interest as it has

retained some of its open setting, and there is another historic farm building surviving

close by. It is described in The Buildings of England as ‘a delightful survival from

rural Hendon’.

Architectural: the building possesses high heritage value as a well-preserved and

little altered mid-17th century brick farmhouse. While it does not reflect leading


tendencies in polite design, it is nonetheless a very good example of the middling

sort of house, showing the growing use of brick as a building material in rural

Middlesex. Restored in 1954, it survives in good condition.

Artistic: the building reflects the construction techniques of early bricklayers but

otherwise is of moderate artistic heritage value.

Historical: the house is of high heritage value as a survival of a rural farm house

which has retained some of its open setting. The building’s past use as a local

museum (acquired in 1944) demonstrates its local value. Given the suburbanisation

of Middlesex, survivals such as these have a particular resonance. As the only

historic domestic building close to the church, it embodies the origins of the

settlement.

Heritage value: High


The house has strong group value with St Mary’s Church and with the listed Milking

Parlour across the road. The Greyhound Public House (1896) is locally listed (ref

HT00094) and contributes to the quality of the group121. The interest of Church

Farm House is increased by its location: with historic open space preserved to the

rear, the house’s position near the top of the hill makes it a prominent building.

Similar to the Church, there is an ensemble value with the other assets at the crest

of the hill, and the approach from the west

The principal setting for the house is from the front. The development site is not

within that setting and therefore does not make any particular contribution to the

heritage value of the listed building.

121 An application was made to the Hendon Magistrates in June 1896 by A.R. Barker, architect of 11 Buckingham Street, Strand to build a pub named The Greyhound in Hendon: London Metropolitan Archives, LMA/40470/03/00906. Whether this is the same building is unclear.


Model Farm: the Milking Parlour (grade II)

This Grade II structure (NHLE 1359074), dated to 1889, is of high heritage value on

architectural and historical grounds. As a purpose-built agricultural building it

embodies the long-since-lost agricultural past of this area of Greater London.

Architectural: the building was designed by the firm of J.T. Wimperis and Arber, a

busy commercial firm of late Victorian architects responsible for some significant

buildings across the country (such as the Grafton Galleries, New Bond St, 1892 and

the Palace Theatre, Blackburn, 1898). John Thomas Wimperis FRIBA (1829-1904)

was in partnership with William Henry Arber (1849-1904) from 1889, the year of this

building. It is boldly conceived, a narrow apsidal-ended structure in brick and tile,

with an elaborately treated taking-in door to the upper hayloft. It reflects the

tendencies of later Victorian architecture in its domestic application of mixed motifs

and materials, aligned in a logical and boldly planned form. It is unusual for its date,

location and style.

Artistic: the building’s high heritage value derives from its architectural quality rather

than artistic.

Historical: a structure of high historical interest. The quality of this agricultural

building is all the more surprising as it was built in an area which was starting to

become a suburb. It was built for C.F. Hancock of Hendon Hall, Ashley Lane, and a

wealthy London jeweller and thus has cultural interest as a model farm building built

by a wealthy patron, and a late example of the type in an unusual Middlesex location.




The building has some group value with the listed (and locally listed) buildings across

the road and reinforces the sense of this being the historic core of the original

settlement.

There is very limited intervisibility between the milking parlour and the development

site which does not therefore make any contribution to our understanding of the

heritage value of the listed building. Thus, the development site does not contribute

to the value of the receptor as it is not part of its setting.

Hendon Library (grade II)

This Grade II library (NHLE 1390057) was opened in 1929 for the Hendon Urban

District Council. Its architect was TM Wilson FRIBA. The building, although altered

internally, is of high heritage value for its frontage, aspects of the interior, and its part

in a fine group of civic buildings122.

Architectural: of high heritage value. Wilson’s design is an impressive exercise in

Neo-Georgian library design and it belongs among the better inter-war libraries of

this style. Its appearance in the Architects Journal (27 May 1931) suggests that

contemporaries regarded the building with interest. It is more ambitious than many

other branch libraries, and this is reflected in its imposing façade and its principal

internal spaces. These are the two main grounds on which the building’s heritage

value derives. The frontage, of very high quality construction, is Neo-Georgian in

character but with some freedom in the approach: the very tall columns in antis which

flank the entrance are extremely slender and far removed from the proportions of

the classical canon. The interior was considerably altered in 1973 when the rear

extension was added, but the principal spaces remain intact, including the top-lit

staircase hall. The reading rooms have undergone some alteration since 1931, with

the replacement of fitted furniture and other elements such as doors. The

architectural interest falls away rapidly once the sides are examined, and the rear is

122 See AJ 27/05/31


much compromised. Overall, one of the best Neo-Georgian libraries in Greater

London, marking the more traditional approach to library design just before the

impact of modernism began to be felt.

Artistic: the building is finely constructed of quality materials, but it is hard to ascribe

particular value to it on these grounds.

Historical: of moderate heritage value. As noted above, it is of some interest that it

was featured in the Architects Journal in 1931. It certainly embodies the social role

of libraries in 20th century society, and shows the seriousness with which library

provision was regarded by local authorities at this time.

The internal heritage value can be determined by (1) an inspection of the present

configuration; by (2) a comparison with other interwar public libraries; and by (3) an

interrogation of the list entry. Overall the Library has been assigned a level of high

heritage value, but this is not evenly distributed throughout the building.

The front of the building survives in very good condition externally, and broadly

speaking the front areas are recognisable and of evident heritage value. However,

the rear areas and areas altered in the 1973 phase are of much less interest. The

staircase hall has a Neo-Georgian elegance which matches the exterior but which is

compromised by the new entrance arrangements within. The wrought ironwork of

the staircase is particularly pleasing, and it incorporates a monogram referring to the

council. Elsewhere, quite a high degree of alteration has taken place. This reflects

in part the changes in library provision in recent decades, and in part the building’s

joint use by Barnet Council and by Middlesex University. As is often encountered in

public libraries, very few original fittings remain in place. At Hendon, some rooms

have been knocked together (such as the former Children’s Library and the main

reading room) and the creation of a mezzanine level to the rear has had a negative

impact on the spatial experience of the interior. However, the main upper reading


rooms retain their characterful glazed ceilings and display how important the

provision of light was in such spaces. What does survive inside the library is

representative of Neo-Georgian design: nothing internally is particularly novel, but

that is not the way with this idiom. The difference in quality between the 1929

elements and the later ones is readily apparent.

Historic England brought to our attention an archive photograph showing a ground

floor space illuminated by a large dome. This is evidently no longer in existence and

we speculate that it must have a room located between the rear wings, now lost to

the 1970s extension.

Hendon Library was listed as a particularly good example of an inter-war Neo-

Georgian library. It was a preferred style for such buildings, bringing with it

appropriate messages of culture, tradition and authority. Hendon Library is a

particularly ambitious example for a suburban London library, and its having been

published in the Architects Journal in May 1931 suggests that it was seen at the time

as a library out the usual run of such buildings, which were being erected in large

numbers at this of rapid suburban expansion. Much more characteristic of the norm

is Grade II-listed East Finchley Library, 226 High Road, which was opened in 1938

to the designs of the Finchley borough architect and engineer, Percival Harrison.

Hendon Library was externally ambitious, and this extends internally into the

generous provision of reading rooms and the unusually opulent staircase. The upper

reading rooms are generously scaled but not of special note when seen against other

contemporary examples. Glazed ceilings are commonly found in contemporaneous

libraries: that at the Keats Grove Library in Hampstead (1931, Grade II) has a more

spectacular example with coloured glass. The Grade II-listed Wormhol Library,

Hemlock Road, Hammersmith (1930) is smaller than Hendon’s but shares a striving

for the picturesque in a new civic setting, and it too used the language of Sir

Christopher Wren to create this effect.


Hendon Library was listed in 2002. The list description describes fully the

appearance of the frontage and points out that ‘Back of library largely rebuilt during

a 1973 campaign of alterations’. At this date a new three-storey concrete and steel

framed, flat roofed, extension at the central open space to the rear of the building,

placed between the two original two storey rear wings. This provided a public ground

floor general reading library, and freed space in the historic part of the building for a

public café area in one and a children’s library in the other. The height of the floors

in this extension was limited in order that it could accommodate three storeys at the

same level of the eaves of the original building. The ceiling heights of the new

mezzanine and upper floors and in stark contrast to the more spacious historic parts

of the building that have higher ceilings.

The refurbishment work also provided a controlled entrance area: two sets of double

folding doors contained within a glass lobby enclosure, providing a level of security

for the building as well as a draught lobby to the main foyer of the building. The

original decorative balustrading to the stair and upper landing remained in place

unaltered, being a significant historic asset; as a result, the lobby was limited in

height to below the mid landing level in order to minimize any impact on the staircase.

The major campaign of alterations of 1973 affected the interior, but left the frontage

intact.’ It was not then customary practice in writing list entries to exclude areas: the

drafting at the time was intended to stress the importance of the 1929 elements.

Were it to be re-listed, there is no question that the modern extensions would be

excluded.

In summary, the heritage value of the interior of Hendon Library can be assigned

with some precision to the external frontage, first and foremost; the staircase hall

and circulation space shares some of this heritage value, along with the first floor

reading rooms.




The Library is in the centre of Hendon’s group of civic buildings, and matches them

in materials and (to some degree) style.

The grouping of building share certain characteristics such as their civic function,

general mass and alignment within their plots, materials, relationship to the street

and landscaping. Thus the three buildings together when viewed from the Burroughs

contributes to our understanding of the development of this core of civic buildings in

the first third of the 20th Century.

While the buildings were not developed as a specific planned composition (and differ

in architectural styles), the development of each building has had regard to buildings

already there (the library coming later than the town hall) Thus the primary

appreciation of the heritage value of the town hall and the group of buildings of which

it is a part is from the Burroughs, viewed from the fronts of the buildings, appreciating

the buildings within their generously proportioned landscaped front areas.

Thus, the principal contribution made by the setting of the library (and wider group)

excludes the Fenella and Ravensfield Sites which make no more than a neutral

contribution to the heritage value of the group of assets, or even detract where they

are incidentally visible due to their poor architectural qualities.

Views from the front of the buildings allow views through to the rears of the buildings.

It is evident that the settings of the rears of the buildings have been much changed

by later development. This includes the 1960s town hall annex (at three storeys plus

roof level) and other modern teaching spaces at up to four storeys. Where these

buildings are visible from the front elevation, they form a backdrop of similarly scaled

buildings that largely reflect the materiality of the principal grouping of civic buildings.


Building B9 itself is lower in height and so the views between the frontage buildings

to the rear have an open character at present.

However, the gaps between the buildings do not invite exploration and interest as

the side elevations of the buildings and routes between appear as service or back of

house areas. This is particularly the case with respect to the rear of the B9 clinic

building which is dominated by bin stores, cycle racks and the fenced in fires station

car park opposite. Along with other informal parking spaces. While this is a

secondary element of the setting of the group of three civic buildings, it does detract

from our understanding of the heritage value of the library (and an appreciation of

the fire station to the north).

The B9 site does not represent an important element of the setting of the library

given that the rear of the civic buildings makes a lesser contribution to our

understanding of the heritage value of the group. Elements of the B9 site detract

from the setting of all three buildings to a degree.

There is no intervisibility between the group of civic buildings and the Meritage

Centre Site which does not form part of the setting of these buildings.

Former Hendon Town Hall (grade II)

The Grade II listed former Town Hall (NHLE 1294762) dates from 1900 and was

designed by the architect T. H. Watson (1839-1913). It is of high heritage value partly

arising from the quality of its frontage, and partly because of its part in a fine group

of civic buildings. It is, however, a much extended building and the degree of heritage

value is uneven overall.

Architectural: the building is of high heritage value. A competition was held for the

building: the chosen design, by Thomas Henry WiIson FRIBA, was selected for its

affordability as well as its quality. Wilson was a well-established architect who had

served as president of the Architectural Association in 1870-7; by 1904 he was in


practice with his son, A.M. Watson. Wilson’s design mixed various historical periods

together: as the architect explained at the unveiling, he was keen to combine

medieval motifs with Renaissance ones, to refer to Hendon’s early origins as well as

to embody the period in which notions of government had developed. It is therefore

not surprising that the building has an eclectic quality. Internally, the building has

undergone considerable alteration as well as extension. The most important interior

is the Council Chamber which occupies the central part of the first floor frontage: this

retains its classical panelling. The frontage is by some way the most architecturally

significant aspect of the building. The building was featured in several architectural

magazines of the day, indicative of its status.

Artistic: it is worth noting the presence of a sculpture in front of the building by Israeli

Sculptor Itzhak Ofer entitled ‘The Family of Man’ (1980), erected to mark the

borough’s twinning with the town of Ramat Gan, Israel. The decorative carving on

the front elevation of the building is of good quality, and the overall craftsmanship of

construction is of good quality. The bronze galleon weathervane adds a pleasing

note.

Historical: the building is of high heritage value. The Town Hall was first called

‘Hendon Municipal Buildings’ and it embodies the growth of the area at the end of

the 19th century. Hendon acquired Urban District Council status in 1895 and soon

set about providing itself with suitable premises from which to govern. Concern over

costs restricted the embellishment to the key public and civic areas. The building

was extended in 1934 and 1960, and these have greatly increased the building’s

footprint.

Hendon Town Hall, originally designed by T. H. Watson and built in 1900, is a multi-

phased building. Our understanding of it is enhanced by the 1990s report written by

the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England: this is of particular

utility, given that current circumstances prevent any archival research. The building’s


enlargement embodies the growth of the borough and the increasing responsibilities

of local government during the 20th century. However, its heritage value in

architectural and historic terms is unequally distributed throughout the complex.

The architectural interest is concentrated to a high degree in the 1900 frontage block

by T.H. Watson FRIBA. The building was first listed during the re-survey of the

London Borough of Barnet in 1983: as was customary with listings at this time, the

entry only makes reference to the frontage building and does not attempt to explain

the relative merits of the different component parts of the complex. However, it can

be asserted with some confidence that the listing overwhelmingly relates to this 1900

phase, and the issue of the relative merits of the later additions was not addressed.

The town hall was considerably extended in 1929 and again in 1960. Map evidence

shows this growth clearly enough, although the distinguishing of the phases is

complicated by the contextual approach taken to the building’s extension which was

deliberately done in order to adhere to the red brick traditional appearance of the

civic group.

A report prepared in 2016 as part of a listed building consent application

16/7686/LBC to the London Borough of Barnet noted that the Town Hall was later

extended to the rear by the addition of two wings in 1929. These were of two-storey

plain brick construction beneath pitched slate roofs, similar in style and appearance

to the rear of the original Town Hall, but without the detail and architectural

ornamentation that the front of the original building has. The two wings of the Town

Hall Extension were connected at their western end at first floor level by a covered

footbridge which allowed for access beneath it to the courtyard between the two

wings of the extension. The footbridge link was enclosed by matching brick walls

with rectangular windows beneath a flat roof, and was supported by two pairs of brick

columns. That link is annotated as a '‘footbridge" on Ordnance Survey maps from


1936 onwards, and the ground floor has remained unenclosed retaining the original

footbridge and access arrangement.

The Town Hall Annex was constructed over 30 years later, sometime in the 1960s.

The Annex is a three-storey building with a fourth storey set within a mansard roof.

It is of brick construction with fenestration and detailing to match that of the 1929

Town Hall Extension. As part of this construction a footbridge was constructed linking

the northern wing of the Town Hall Extension to the new Town Hall Annex at first

floor level. This was designed to be similar in appearance to the 1929 Extension

footbridge, and was enclosed by matching brick walls with arched windows beneath

a flat roof, and was supported by two pairs of brick columns. It allowed for pedestrian

access beneath it from the Council car park to the west to the PCT clinic, library and

The Burroughs to the east. The area beneath the footbridge was subsequently filled

in at ground floor level to create a two-storey link between the Town Hall Extension

and the Annex. The later infilling is visibly discernible, with the brick infill panels being

of similar but not identical brick and with different colour of mortar jointing.

It has not been possible to date the annex extension or the infilling of the footbridge

at ground floor level. We have reviewed historic mapping and have visited the

Hendon Local Studies library but have been unable to obtain information to date the

building more accurately than 1961-1969. It does not appear on the 1961 OS plan,

but the 1969 OS plan shows the Town Hall Annex and the link building, with the latter

annotated as a “footbridge”. It can be deduced therefore, that the infilling of the

ground floor to create a two-storey link, rather than a footbridge, occurred some time

after 1969, possibly in the 1970s.”




The Town Hall is the southernmost of the impressive group of civic buildings which

stand on the western side of The Burroughs.

As set out in the assessment of the setting of the library, it is views of the front

elevation and the group value with the library and fire station that is the most

important contribution made by the setting of the town hall to its heritage value.

Conversely, the quality of the setting is somewhat compromised by the presence of

large extensions to the rear of (and sometimes adjoining) the frontage buildings. The

rear extension itself and the annex are not of any particular architectural or historic

interest. Thus it follows that the ‘settings’ of these particular elements do not make

any meaningful contribution to the heritage value of the principally listed Town Hall

‘core’, although they do illustrate the history of development of the civic complex

The rear area generally makes a much lesser contribution to the understanding of

the heritage value of the building and is characterised by larger scaled buildings (up

to four storeys) of similar materials (none of which are of particular merit themselves).

Thus the B9 site (or the open views that it affords of the Town Hall Annex) does not

make a very important contribution to our understanding of the heritage value of the

town hall.

Similarly, the Fenella and Ravensfield sites make only a very limited contribution to

the setting the Town Hall (no more than neutral).

The Clinic

The small health clinic located behind the Library dates from the same inter-war

period as that building, but was designed in a very different idiom, being more

‘moderne’ on style. It was built as a detached and separate structure and is shown

as such on the 1936 25 inch Ordnance Survey map. The buildings are linked by a

wall but are in no other way physically linked. Nor does the clinic contribute to the


group value of the area. The clinic forms a secondary part of the Edwardian and

interwar civic group of local authority buildings at The Burroughs, but is not a

curtilage structure and not one of special interest or of particular heritage value.

The Daniel Almshouses (grade II)

This Grade II complex (NHLE 1188528) dates from 1729 and is of high heritage

value on architectural and historical grounds.

Architectural: the Almshouses are of high heritage value. They comprise a tripartite

design in brick, with two storey pedimented blocks to the centre and ends, linked

with single storey ranges. The centrepiece has a tripartite Venetian window

arrangement with a blind central arch: beneath is a Portland stone inscription tablet

on brackets. The Diocletian windows to the end blocks reinforce the Palladian nature

of the composition. The building (currently being renovated) is externally little altered.

The east wing was opened as a school in 1766. The interior is believed to have been

altered on several occasions. While this needs verifying, it is very likely that the

architectural heritage value of the building derives from its street frontage.

Artistic: the building has limited claims to artistic interest, beyond its architectural

design.

Historical: the building is of high heritage value. The alms houses were endowed by

Robert Daniel, ‘Merchant of London’ who bequeathed land in Oxfordshire for the

purpose. Almshouses are always of interest for reflecting past patterns of local

philanthropy. According to The Gentleman’s Magazine vol 59 (1786), p100 the

almshouses supported six women and four men, selected by the vicar.




The building stands some distance from other listed buildings and thus does not

have Group Value. It occupies a prominent position aligned on the southern end of

Church End.

The setting of the alms houses has plainly changed significantly since its

construction and is now characterised by the suburban development close to its

boundaries on all sides. While there are long views of the building in a southerly

direction along Church End, where the profile of the building can be read against the

sky, this is now experienced within the context of a suburban environment, and

framed by the residential block on the corner of Church End and Church Road.

The setting of the alms houses therefore makes a limited contribution to our

understanding of the heritage value of the building. Accordingly the development site

in its undeveloped form makes no material contribution to the heritage value of the

alms houses.

Hendon Fire Station (grade II)

The Fire Station is listed Grade II (NHLE 1352682) and is a good example of an

outer London fire station of the Edwardian period. The building was designed by

Herbert Welch (1884-1953), an architect of some renown. It is of high heritage value.

Architectural: this is a building of high heritage value. The competition brief for the

building insisted that the design harmonised with the recently erected Town Hall.

Welch, an architect who had recently been working with the noted firm of Parker and

Unwin in Hampstead Garden Suburb, would go on to design much of the centre of

Golders Green to the south. He won with a design which used harmonious materials

and a historicist style, but which also introduced clear echoes of the contemporary

London County Council fire stations, which applied an Arts and Crafts approach to

these civic buildings. Welch’s design blends Neo-Georgian elements with mullioned

windows; the off-centre alignment of the engine portals qualifies the otherwise


strongly symmetrical impact of the front. There is interest also in aspects of the

interior (the List entry is precise in identifying these). The building has been

extended to the rear and a drill tower added on the southern flank. Modern buildings

encroach upon the northern elevation, and the front walls with railings are of modern

date. Extensions to the rear are of low heritage value; the oldest of the buildings in

this area is the mortuary.

Artistic: save for the carving of the Hendon UDC arms on the front, there is little of

artistic interest here.

Historical: the building embodies the provision of municipal resources for the growing

suburb of Hendon. Overall, as part of a noted trio of council buildings, this is of high

heritage value.



The building has considerable heritage value, standing alongside the Library and

Town Hall. The presence to the north of the unlisted University of Middlesex building

(locally listed: ref. HT01206), a further 20th century municipal building (erected by

Middlesex County Council as a technical college), adds to this ensemble value.

As set out in the assessment of the setting of the library, it is views of the front

elevation and the group value with the town hall and fire station that is the most

important contribution made by the setting of the library to its heritage value.

Conversely, the quality of the setting is somewhat compromised by the presence of

large extensions to the rear of (and sometimes adjoining) the frontage buildings.

Thus it follows that the ‘settings’ of these particular elements do not make any

meaningful contribution to the heritage value of the fire station. The appearance of


the rear of the B9 clinic and the fire station parking area and modern extensions and

facilities detract somewhat from the appearance to the rear.

Thus, the rear area generally makes a much lesser contribution to the

understanding of the heritage value of the building and is characterised by larger

scaled buildings (up to four storeys) of similar materials (none of which are of

particular merit themselves).

Thus the B9 site (or the open views that it affords of the Town Hall Annex) does not

make a very important contribution to our understanding of the heritage value of the

town hall.

Similarly, the Fenella and Ravensfield sites make only a very limited contribution to

the setting the Town Hall (no more than neutral).

As set out above, there is no intervisibility between the group of civic buildings and

the Meritage Centre Site which does not form part of the setting of these buildings.

Church House, 49 Church End (Locally Listed)

This building comprises a circa 1890 two storey rendered building with an eaves

cornice and clay tile roof. It was refurbished for use by St Mary’s Church in 2016,

and is included on the Local List for its intactness, aesthetic merit and landmark

quality.

The Development Site falls within the setting of the building in that there is a degree

of intervisibility between the building and the site, but does not contribute the heritage

value of the receptor. The existing Meritage Centre building forms an unattractive

backdrop to the building when approach from the west along Greyhound Hill.

Heritage value: Low


Rose Cottage, Church End (Locally Listed)

Rose Cottage is a detached house with three projecting gables with wooden barge

boards. The date 1908 is marked on the front elevation, and it has a large chimney

with pots. The building is included on the Local List for its intactness, aesthetic merit

and landmark quality.

The Development Site falls within the setting of the building in that there is a degree

of intervisibility between the building and the site. While the Development site itself

does not contribute to the heritage value of Rose Cottage, the existing Meritage

Centre detracts from views of Rose Cottage looking north along Church End and

forms an unattractive backdrop to the building when approach from the west along

Greyhound Hill.

Heritage value: Low

The Chequers Public House, 20 Church End (Locally Listed)

The Chequers Public House (now a nursery) dates from the late 19th century with

alterations. It is of two storeys with stucco render and a dentillated eaves cornice. It

originally formed the end of a terrace of houses which was demolished in the 1970s.

It is included on the Local List for its intactness, aesthetic merits and landmark quality.

The Development Site forms part of the setting of the Greyhound Public House but

does not contribute to the significance of the asset. The existing Meritage Centre

building forms an unattractive backdrop to the building when approach from the west

along Greyhound Hill.

Heritage value: Low

The Greyhound Inn Public House (Locally Listed)

The Greyhound Public House was been a pub since 1878, before which it was used

for vestry meetings. It replaced an earlier Greyhound Inn in 1896. The inn is owned


by a trust of the Church, and has a commandment board hanging in the bar. It is

white painted brick, with a dormer protruding from the front elevation and a steeply

pitched clay tile roof. The building is included on the Local List for its social and

communal value, landmark quality, intactness and aesthetic merits.

The setting of the building at the centre of the former hamlet contributes to the

heritage value of the building. The Development Site has limited intervisibility with

the building and so does not contribute to the heritage value of the building.

Heritage value: Low

28 Church End (Non-designated heritage receptor)

The Conservation Appraisal also identifies No. 28 Church End as a building that

contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area (see

the map at Page 52 of the Conservation Area Appraisal) and states (p34):

“…beyond The Chequer’s carpark, are a pair of semi-detached residential properties, Nos. 28 and 30 Church End. No. 30 overpowers No. 28, by virtue of its more impressive expanse. Both two storeys high, No. 30 is composed of two, two-storey bay windows at the front with a centralised door, two gable projections to the rear and a hipped clay tile roof with pebbledashed walls. No. 28 is built in a more traditional Victorian style, of London stock brick, with only three sash windows and a front door on its principal elevation, and a slate tiled roof. Both buildings share a central chimney stack but No. 30 has two separate chimneys to its northern elevation.”

No. 28 Church End is the end of a former terrace of three houses, dating from about

the 1850s. The northernmost two of the terrace were demolished and replaced with

No 30, built in 1930s. It possesses a low level of heritage value as a remnant of the

earlier streetscape in this part of the Conservation Area.

The building is not locally listed.


Heritage value: Very Low

Conservation Areas Hendon Church End Conservation Area

Hendon Church End Conservation Area was first designated in 1983, and is the

subject of an Appraisal and Management Proposals document adopted in 2012.

The Conservation Area has a linear form, focussed on a north-south stretch of

Church Road, extending to the south of the junction with the latter.

The Conservation Area broadly covers the area which was formerly the settlement

of Church End, which focussed upon a well-watered promontory where the Church

of St Mary was constructed. This focussed space at the north of the CA is its area of

principal interest, with a cluster of historic buildings contributing to the village

atmosphere, including the Greyhound Pub and Church Farmhouse.

Whilst this core is legible as a historic village, the character of the Conservation Area

as a whole has changed as a result of creeping suburbanisation; the settlement has

coalesced with the previously separate village at The Burroughs to the south, and to

the north-west and south the surrounding environment is characterised by late 19th

and 20th century residential development of varying quality.

In particular, the area along Church Terrace, to the west of the church, has a back-

of-house feel, with the poor quality elevation of the Meritage Centre its tall boundary

fence and large expanses of car parking creating an unattractive, utilitarian character.

The Meritage Centre

Whilst excluded from the CA boundary, the existing building at 13-21 Church End is

understood as part of the linear experience of Church End, and is an unattractive


feature which detracts from its character. The unsympathetic mid-20th century

building is a prominent, detracting element in views north towards the Church.

Church Farm House, to the east of Church End, is now the sole remnant of the 16th

and 17th century farm houses which once characterised the area.

The Parish Church of St Mary, included on the statutory list at grade II*, is a landmark

building in the Conservation Area, which also forms the focal point of the historic

settlement. The churchyard is a defined area of open space, characteristic of the

village environment, which has an established feel, and contributes to the character

and appearance of the area as a whole.

A number of important local views contribute to the heritage value and appreciation

of the Conservation Area, including:

• The view north-west along Church End towards the Greyhound Inn; • From outside the Greyhound Inn, west along Greyhound Hill; • Views out from St Mary’s Churchyard and Church Field through the tree line; • The vista looking out of the CA to the north-west from the edge of Sunny Hill Park;

and • From Church End, looking north along Church Road.

These are identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal.

To the south, the open land east of Church End enables views towards the larger,

more civic and institutional development at The Burroughs.

Within the setting of the CA, the coalescence of the formerly separate settlement at

The Burroughs, and an increased density in modern infill development have

detracted from its historic village character.

The historic character remains, principally, in the immediate environs of the Church,

where the ensemble of the Church Farmhouse, Church itself, historic monuments


within the churchyard and other features such as the Greyhound Public House can

be appreciated collectively.

Thus the heritage value of the Church End Conservation Area can be summarised

as:

• The ensemble of historic buildings at the north of the CA which are redolent of an historic village;

• The high quality of some of the buildings, in particular the highly graded assets included on the statutory list;

• The linear views of this space along Church End.


The Burroughs Conservation Area

The Burroughs Conservation Area has a linear form, lying to the south of the listed

civic cluster focussed on Hendon Town Hall, Fire Station and Library. It is the subject

of an appraisal adopted in 2012.

The Appraisal identifies two key views; one from the junction of Watford Way, at its

southern extent, oriented north; the second looking east along Brampton Grove.

These views do not presently take in the Site.

Its character is described in the Conservation Area Appraisal as ‘one of a busy

thoroughfare connecting other areas in the west of the Burroughs. The residential

terraces accessed off Burroughs Gardens have a quieter, more suburban feel.’

The Conservation Area derives its special character from its historic use as a

principal route to and from the centre of Hendon.

Built form primarily comprises terraced residential dwellings, with a collection of

offices, shops and a former Public House. It is noted as being a highly used route

for students coming to and from Hendon Station.


The Fenella and Ravensfield Site at present is an unattractive feature in the setting

of the Conservation Area. The northernmost extent of the CA lies adjacent to the car

park at the south of the Site, which is an unattractive, unrelieved expanse of

hardstanding. The blank elevation of the Victorian terraced development beyond is

similarly unattractive.

There is therefore scope to improve the Site’s appearance in views north from the

Conservation Area.


The built heritage baseline is summarised in Table 12.9 below, which also identifies

those assets which have the potential to experience a significant effect as a result of

the Proposed Development, and which are therefore scoped in to further

assessment. The table identifies for the avoidance of doubt which heritage assets

are scoped out for assessment.

Table 12.9: Built Heritage Baseline

Map Ref

Name Grade Heritage Value

Full Assessment Required

Listed Buildings 1 Parish Church of St Mary II* High Yes 2 Church Farmhouse Museum II* High No 3 Tombs in St Mary’s Churchyard of:

Conquest Jones, John Jones, Sir Joseph Ayloffe, John Haley, Henry Jaynes, Susannah Frye

II Medium Yes

4 Mausoleum of Philip Rundell in St Mary’s Churchyard

II Medium Yes


5 Unidentified Chest Tomb 15 metres south east of Church in St Mary’s Churchyard

II Medium Yes

6 Headstone of Thomas Thatcher in St Mary’s Churchyard

II Medium Yes

7 Model Farm, the Milking Parlour II Medium No 8 Daniel Almshouses II Medium No 9 The Vicarage II Medium No 10 Hendon Fire Station II Medium Yes 11 Montfort House II Medium No 12 Milestone (London 7) on Wall of No.

161 Brent Street between Church Road and Lodge Road

II Medium No

13 Hendon Library II Medium Yes 14 Hendon Town Hall II Medium Yes 15 Ice House at St Joseph’s Convent

School II Medium No

16 47 and 55, The Burroughs NW4 II Medium Yes 17 44-52, The Burroughs NW4 II Medium Yes 18 Burroughs House II Medium Yes 19 15 The Burroughs NW4 and Ivey House II Medium No 20 9 and 11 The Burroughs NW4 II Medium No 21 Hendon War Memorial II Medium No Conservation Areas

A Hendon Church End CA N/A Medium Yes

B The Burroughs Hendon CA N/A High Yes

Locally Listed Buildings

Church House, 49 Church End N/A Low Yes

Rose Cottage, Church End N/A Low Yes

The Chequers Public House, 20 Church End

N/A Low Yes

The Greyhound Public House N/A Low Yes

Non-Designated heritage receptors (not locally listed)

28 Church End N/A Very Low Yes


Townscape Baseline

The study area includes five areas of distinct character, with Character Area 4 split

into three identified sub-areas, which share the same character but are physically

distinct.

An appraisal of their character is set out below.

Character Area 1: Civic and Institutional Centre

This character area is focussed on the southern part of Church End, which is

characterised predominantly by 20th century large footprint public developments.

The Town Hall is a landmark on the west side, and is experienced as part of an

attractive ensemble with the library and fire station.

The character area sits at the juncture of the historic settlements at Hendon (to the

north) and The Burroughs (to the south), and therefore has an infill character; with

modern development characterising the space between the two enclaves. The area

is a popular pedestrian route through the town centre, as well as a destination for its

civic and institutional uses.

Buildings in this area are generally detached, with large footprints and a rectilinear

arrangement focussed on The Burroughs. Their height is greater than the domestic

scale seen in character areas 4b and 4 to east and west, which marks the area as a

civic focus.

In terms of materiality, red brick is a prominent feature, though this is varied in quality;

the brickwork at the Town Hall is an attractive feature which contributes to the historic

ensemble at the area’s core, whilst the modern brickwork at the Fenella and

Ravensfield site has a utilitarian quality due to its uniformity of tone.


Stone dressings are another feature of the area, seen in particular to the ground floor

elevation of the Fire Station.

Set back from the frontage, the character area is less formal, and in places, such as

in the environs of building B9, has a back-of-house, service character, which is

unwelcoming to pedestrians. Wayfinding through the area is also poor- principally a

linear corridor for people passing by unless they are engaged in university activity.

The buildings east and west of The Burroughs are unified through their association

with the university; the road itself has an open character, with wide pavements and

established, mature vegetation.

The area of landscaping to the western side of The Burroughs provides some relief

from the urban environment.

The Site falls within Character Area 1. The site itself at the rear of the library is

relatively enclosed and visible only in oblique views from the Burroughs Frontage.

Character Area 2: Church End Historic Settlement

The boundaries of this character area are broadly consistent with those of the

Church End Conservation Area. It covers the former village at Church End, which

while it retains its village character has been substantially altered through the

addition of infill development of varying quality.

The Church forms the focal point of the area, due to its distinctive tower and its

position at the northern extent, on the area of highest land. It is closely associated

with historic buildings in its immediate vicinity, including the Greyhound Public House,

and Church Farmhouse, now a museum. Collectively, these read as an historic

village ensemble, though this character is best appreciated in views north-west from

Church End.


Towards the south, the character of the area is more varied, with lower quality

development including the large 20th century building at 16-22 Church End.

Development, whilst varied in terms of its use and period, is unified through a number

of identifiable characteristics, including pitched tiled roofs, gables, and the prevailing

use of red brick and render. The mature trees which intersperse the built form also

make an important contribution.

The Meritage Centre falls within this character area, but forms a jarring contrast with

its prevailing character. The building appears underscaled in its context, being

largely of a single storey with a shallow pitched roof and irregular fenestration leaving

large expanses of brick. Its generic mid-20th century expression is at odds with the

better considered ensemble to the west.

The use of the road for car parking contributes to a hostile pedestrian environment.

Church End itself and Greyhound Hill is a busy traffic environment.

The use of the Meritage Centre is varied, but in keeping with the village centre

character. The building accommodates a nursery, as well as some residential

accommodation, and flexible space used by the university as well as the church.

This sense of destination, and integration with the surrounding community, is an

important aspect of the character of the historic settlement area.

Views out of this character area are also an important part of the way it is

experienced; from the churchyard at its northern extent, the views across Sunny Hill

Park contribute a rural setting which is befitting of an historic settlement.

Character Area 3: The Burroughs


This character area encompasses The Burroughs Conservation Area, and

comprises the former historic settlement to the south of Hendon, including some infill

development of varied quality.

The character area has a linear structure, focussed on the north-south route of the

road. Historic buildings, some of which are included on the statutory list, are

interspersed with more recent development, and many buildings have shop fronts at

ground level. The Burroughs car park, to the west, is an unattractive townscape gap,

and spaces between buildings provide some limited views of service areas behind

the primary frontages.

The portion of the character area which also lies within the CA is more recognisable

as a historic residential area, though this character has been eroded by the busy

road, and the retail and commercial uses in the area.

Character Area 4: Wider Residential Development

Character Area 4 is a very large character area, comprising the suburban

development arranged in the vicinity of Hendon. The area is split into three identified

sub-areas (a,b and c) which are physically distinct but have a common character.

The character area typically comprises two storey domestic development, which

varies in style between historic terraces, which are generally finer grain and date

from earlier in the area’s development, and later 20th century semi-detached and

some detached properties.

Houses are generally set behind front gardens, and a range of boundary treatments

are evident.

The character areas are understood separately from areas 1 and 2, but are

interrelated; through the existence of the historic centres, and the surrounding


residential development, the story of Hendon’s expansion and population growth is

legible.

This is reinforced through the uniformity of scale and materiality in this area, the latter

comprising predominantly brick, render and tile roofs.

Character Area 5: Open Space

This character area comprises the open space at Sunny Hill Park which falls partially

within the study area to the north.

The park predominantly comprises grassland, and offers significant views to the

north and west owing to its high elevation.

Towards the south-east of the park, and area formerly within the St Mary’s

Churchyard is now part of the public open space, and forms a transitional area

between the two.

The open spaces is bordered by residential development to the east and west–

mostly terraced or semi-detached in nature and dating from the late-C19 and early-

C20. This sense of enclosure is further emphasised by boundary walls, fencing and

vegetation, which filters and/or screens views south.

The townscape baseline is summarised in Table 12.10 below, which also identifies

those receptors which have the potential to experience a significant townscape effect

as a result of the Proposed Development, and which are therefore scoped in to

further assessment.


Table 12.10: Townscape Baseline

Map Ref

Name Townscape Value

Full Assessment Required

Townscape Character Areas 1 Civic and Institutional Centre Medium Yes 2 Church End Historic Settlement Medium Yes 3 The Burroughs Medium Yes 4 Wider Residential Development Low Yes 5 Open Space Medium Yes

Visual Baseline

As part of the visual assessment, 20 AVRs have been considered, and are set out

at Section 9 of the three HTVIAs at Appendices 1-3.

For the reader’s ease, the visual baseline and visual assessment are set out together

at the visual assessment section below.


This section sets out the effects of the Proposed Development on the identified

heritage, townscape and visual receptors, cross referring to the three HTVIAs where

relevant.

Effects During Construction

Heritage Receptors

The construction phase of development comprises the necessary steps to enable

the operation of the Proposed Development. More information on the construction

programme is set out in Chapter 5.


The Construction Management Plan sets out the anticipated programme of works

and the key activities that would be undertaken on the Sites during demolition and

construction necessary to facilitate the Proposed Development. The construction

period is to be phased which will help mitigate any potential effects on heritage

receptors.

The Sites would be enclosed with tall hoarding during Demolition and Construction,

which will provide a visual buffer from the immediate environment. . Equipment and

heavy machinery will also be a common feature of the Site for the anticipated

construction programme.

The demolition and construction phase will also result in increased noise, vibration,

dust and traffic in the surrounding area.

The magnitude of this impact will be mainly experienced within the Site, with much

of the construction activity occluded from view by hoardings.

The Transport Chapter provides mitigation measures to reduce the disruption

caused by traffic movements associated with construction and Site preparation. The

logistic management team would organise and plan prescribed delivery times to

ensure that busy roads do not become congested with frequent material deliveries.

The standard environmental controls required under legislation and best practice

guidance are met as a matter of course. In order to further mitigate the impact of

demolition and construction to the immediate area the Applicant may enter into a

‘Considerate Constructors’ scheme to ensure best practice.

Direct impacts of the construction phase on designated heritage receptors will be

experienced by Hendon Library, the Town Hall, and the Church End Conservation

Area. This would comprise visual influences from construction activities themselves

as well as noise.


The following heritage receptors are located within closed proximity of the site and

therefore the activities at this stage of the proposed development would introduce

construction activities to their more immediate setting. This would comprise new

visual influences, as well as noise:

• Parish Church of St Mary; • Tombs in St Mary’s Churchyard of: Conquest Jones, John Jones, Sir Joseph

Ayloffe, John Haley, Henry Jaynes, Susannah Frye; • Mausoleum of Philip Rundell in St Mary’s Churchyard; • Unidentified Chest Tomb 15m southeast of Church; • Headstone of Thomas Thatcher in St Mary’s Churchyard • Daniel Almshouses; • Hendon Fire Station; • Church House, 49 Church End; • Rose Cottage, Church End; • The Chequers Public House, 20 Church End; • The Greyhound Public House;

There would be no permanent change to the way the heritage value of the receptors

identified in the baseline is appreciated or understood arising from this phase of the

proposed development. The appearance of construction activity and its impact to the

sensory experience of the receptor would be over a limited duration. It is not

considered to have any effect on the long-term conservation of the receptor or its

overall heritage value.

Due to the scale of the proposed development, it is envisaged that the demolition

and construction works would be completed in phases – as confirmed in Chapter 5,

the proposed development will be constructed over three phases commencing in

2022.

In this case, the demolition and construction activities would mainly be appreciated

within a very localised context and so the main likely impacts would involve the

visibility of tall construction equipment such as cranes. It is considered that the


majority of heritage receptors would have a Low susceptibility to this type of direct

change or change to their setting and the magnitude of impact would be Low on

their heritage value. This results in a likely effect of short-term, temporary, minor adverse.

Townscape and Visual Impact during Construction

This stage of the proposed development would introduce construction activities to

the wider townscape in which the receptors are appreciated. It is noted that this type

of activity is not uncommon, where the area is undergoing redevelopment and

regeneration. The appearance of this type of activity would be considered to change

the baseline situation, but to a Very Low magnitude of impact on the sensitivity of

the receptors. This is considered to be short-term, temporary Negligible Adverse

likely effect because the activities are unattractive and degrade the townscape

setting to a degree, and the overall way in which the receptors are experienced. This

likely effect is not significant.

We summarise the operational effects of the Proposed Development on the

identified heritage, townscape and visual receptors below.

Built Heritage

Owing to the scale and nature of the proposals, the street layout and orientation, and

existing interposing development and vegetation, we find that there would be no

effect on the setting of the following heritage assets, which are thus scoped out of

further assessment:

• Church Farmhouse Museum (grade II*); • Model Farm, the Milking Parlour (grade II); • Hendon War Memorial (grade II); • Ivey House (grade II); • 15 The Burroughs (grade II); • Burroughs House (grade II);


• 44-52 The Burroughs (grade II); • The Vicarage (grade II); • Montfort House (grade II); • Milestone (London 7) on wall of number 161 Brent Street between Church Road

and Lodge Road (grade II);

They are included in the summary table at the end of this section for completeness.

Listed buildings

This section provides an assessment of the effects on listed buildings at operational

stage.

St Mary’s Church (grade II*), Tombs In St Mary’s Churchyard (grade II); Mausoleum of Philip Rundell in St Mary’s Churchyard (grade II); Unidentified Chest Tomb 15 metres south east of Church in St Mary’s Churchyard (grade II); Headstone of Thomas Thatcher in St Mary’s Churchyard (grade II);

Plainly the Proposed Development does not directly affect the principal elements of

heritage value of the church, in terms of the degree of medieval fabric and the

importance of the various fixtures and associations with noted stonemasons.

Similarly, the Proposed Development does not affect our ability to appreciate the

historic interest of the church. Thus the main elements of the heritage value of the

church are unchanged, and one’s appreciation of these principal elements of

heritage value are unaffected.

Thus any effect on the heritage value of the church would be by virtue of developing

within its setting. The primary setting of the church is defined by the churchyard walls

itself. The Proposed Development is obviously outside of this primary setting. The

primary setting also encompasses the entrances to the churchyard from Church

Terrace and Church End and these too are unaffected by the development; this

entrance sequence to the church by users is unaffected by the development which

would only be experienced peripherally. The views from the north of the churchyard

are also an important part of the church’s setting, and this too is entirely unaffected.


As a suburban landscape, the character of the churchyard results in part from its

existence as an area of open space set within first a rural settlement and then later

a dense built environment. The church itself doubled in size in 1914, reflecting the

extent of change in the function and characteristics of the area.

Its historic function was intrinsically related to the growth and habitation of this part

of north-west London, and as such the relationship between the church, the

churchyard and its developed, suburban setting forms part of its character close to

a location of iterative change and suburbanisation throughout the 19th and 20th

Centuries which has resulted in development closer and further away from the

eastern church boundary in different phases over time. Any change to the setting

of the church should be considered in this context.

At the present time, views of the church from the south along Church End and

Church Terrace are part obscured by the unattractive Meritage Centre. Similar to the

positive effects on the conservation area, the removal of these blocks will have a

positive effect on the approach to the church from the south. This is a beneficial

effect which should be accorded great weight in the assessment of the proposals.

Historic England Advice Note 3 identifies that the creation of new views of heritage

assets should be considered a benefit.

Whilst the proposed development would be visible from parts of the churchyard

(limited to Block 1 of the Meritage Centre Site and only the taller elements), the built

form is more distant from the boundary than the current Meritage Centre, preserving

a sense of differentiation. The taller element is set further away. This separation is

a new development – the historic maps show that historically there were Victorian

terraces very close to the boundary, and so the change is part of an iterative process

of development in the locality. The perception of the development at the boundary

does not have a material effect on the tranquillity of the churchyard and preserves

the most important views from it.


The articulation of the proposed blocks 1 and 2 of the Meritage Centre Site into

different elements with a variety of materials, an articulated roof form and section of

greater and lower height break down the mass of the building so that it does not read

as a large block, especially within the views of along Church End.

We note also that a number of memorials within the churchyard are listed, but by

their nature they are not susceptible to the sort of setting change under consideration

and there would be no harm to the ability to appreciate the distinguished memorials.

These, by virtue of their form, scale and purpose, derive their historic and

architectural interest from their age and function, and have a setting which is defined

by the character of the space within the cemetery. The wider townscape, which is

understood separately from the defined space within the cemetery, does not

contribute to the heritage value of these tombs, or their appreciation.

While the mature and verdant character of the churchyard can be appreciated from

outside is boundary, this does not form part of the principal element of the church’s

heritage value. Views into the churchyard would have been obscured for the better

part of the last 150 years. Notwithstanding, the green character of the churchyard

will still be discernible and the approach to the church generally will be improved.

The susceptibility of the receptor is judged to be Low which results in a Low sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact to the Church.

The Proposed Development would give rise to a Minor Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.

Owing to the inward-focussed nature of the memorials and their setting within the

Churchyard, the Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact to

these receptors. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Negligible Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.


Hendon Library, Hendon Town Hall and Hendon Fire Station (grade II)

These three receptors fall within the setting of both the B9 Site and the Ravensfield

and Fenella Site. For clarity, the effects can be summarised thus:

• The effect of the B9 proposals on the fabric of the Library and Town Hall annexe; • The effect of the B9 Proposals on the setting of the Town Hall and Hendon Fire

Station; • The effect of the Fenella and Ravensfield proposals on the setting of the Library,

Town Hall and Fire Station, both individually and as an ensemble.

The following discursive analysis considers these effects before reaching an

assessment of the effect of the proposals as a whole on each receptor.

As described at Section 5.0 of Appendix 1, the library’s front elevation remained

intact through the (largely harmful) 1973 works, and this remains an element of

principal heritage value. The Proposals do not affect or change the appearance or

appreciation of the front elevation, and the ability to appreciate its heritage value

would be preserved.

The northern and southern elevations, which are illustrated at drawings CS/099180

and CS/099180, has been carefully considered to preserve a sense of distinction

between the Library and Town Hall buildings. The use of materials, including a

language of red brick and glazing, ties the buildings together, with rectangular

punched fenestration in the new building providing a contemporary response to the

similarly proportioned multi-paned windows of the library.

The building appears as three distinct parts, differentiated by glazed connections.

The viewer would here appreciate the architectural interest of each of the listed

buildings, and visually differentiate between the central new portion. At roof level,

set-backs further differentiate between the three portions of the building. The

setbacks and form of the roof reduce the sense of scale of the library, with the


proposed extension reading as a three storey element, comfortably in scale with the

library itself, the town hall and annex and adjacent fire station.

The creation of an active ground floor frontage here would also be beneficial,

drawing people in to this underutilized part of the Site and contributing to the sense

of the buildings as a destination.

The proposed plant room of B9 is to be placed on the area formerly occupied by the

1970s extension library, avoiding any historic fabric. It is sufficiently set back so as

to not be visible in street views and the detailed design of enclosures will be

developed prior to an application.

Overall, we consider that the proposals would remove an unsympathetic element

abutting the listed Library building, and improve the opportunity for its appreciation

by enlivening its setting, to form the focus of a new university centre.

The form of the new building at the B9 site utilises appropriate materials from a

traditional palette to reflect the character of the library, while reading as a distinct,

high quality modern addition to the building.

In terms of scale and mass, it is proportionately sized with a subordinate upper floor

(formed by a mansard roof which significantly reduces the presence of the additional

storey from street eye-level)) and a parapet line that steps down towards the

connection with the library. The building line of the building on its northern side steps

in to mediate between the different building lines of the library and the Town Hall

Annex.

The proposals seek to provide a sympathetic update to the internal spaces of the

library. The principal spaces at ground and first floor level are to be retained and

given a new purpose at the heart of the Proposed Development. Details of quality


and interest are retained, including the original principal staircase, which has a neo-

Georgian elegance.

The plan form of the building will remain legible, with the maintenance of principal

spaces.

Importantly, the development will allow the removal of piecemeal modern additions

and partitions in the main areas at ground floor which have eroded the proportions

of the space.

There is therefore little impact on important fabric of the building itself, and its

heritage value as an early 20th century library building will be unaffected by the B9

development.

The main intervention forming part of the B9 works to the building is via the rear

extensions to the library. Our analysis at Section 5.0 of Appendix 1 concluded that

the infill building to the rear is a modern structure which makes no meaningful

contribution to the historic or architectural interest of the listed building.

The insertion of new elements has been carefully considered to avoid visual

disruption to the internal and external form of the library and to enable the extent of

the building to be appreciated in its original form. The new development will read as

a modern extension to the building. There will be a clear distinction between the

main historic spaces and the new internal spaces created to the rear. The extension

will not be perceptible from external views of the building to the front. It will not

interfere with an appreciation of the aesthetic qualities of the building when viewed

from the Burroughs.

In particular, works are proposed to refurbish the building, creating an airy,

welcoming entrance hall (removing unsympathetic modern subdivisions within the


entrance hall), and help integrate the new business school into its context. These

internal alterations are considered beneficial.

These works represent an enhancement to the important entrance sequence of the

building, enabling an appreciation of the elegant stair and entrance hall which is

currently obscured by later interventions. These works of enhancement should be

given great weight in the consideration of the proposals overall.

At ground floor level, the removal of the partitions to create an open planform would

change the character of the space, and the cellular rooms to either side of the main

entrance would no longer be legible.

In terms of the town hall, the physical connection to the town hall is limited to central

connections through existing openings in the 1960 Annex. The extent of physical

intervention is limited to lowering the sills on one window on each floor.

The central connections are to be contained within a glazed void to full height. The

glazed connection is set back 5m from the façade of the Town Hall Annex in

accordance with advice received during the first pre-application discussions, and set

in from the main façade of the new building, and side façade of the Town Hall Annex.

The glazed link allows internal circulation and visual connectivity with the Town Hall

Annex and allows views of the façade of the Annex itself.

The Annex is part of the 1960s phase of development. The principal heritage value

of the Town Hall is contained within its original early 20th Century core facing the

Burroughs. The annex is a postwar addition forming the third of multiple phases of

additions to the Town Hall. It was developed to match the 1930s rear extension in

terms of its detailing, but appears as a utilitarian block and while it sits well in context

in terms of massing, details and materials, the Annex is architecturally

undistinguished and holds little historic interest.


The Annex is physically distant from the principal areas of interest within the Town

Hall and the degree of connection to the principal listed building is weak, and it is

debatable whether the annex should be considered part of the listing.

Nevertheless, the interventions in the Annex are not harmful to the principal areas

of heritage value of the Town Hall exterior or interior. While the proposal blocks

oblique views of the town hall annex from the Burroughs, we do not consider this to

be harmful to the principal areas of interest within the Town Hall contained within its

original historic core. The design of the proposed building allows one to continue to

understand the Annex in the context of a late addition to the original Town Hall in

multi-phased additions to accommodate expanded civic responsibilities. The

heritage value of the principal town hall building remains intact. We conclude that

there is no direct or indirect harm to the listed Town Hall as a whole arising from the

proposed development.

Setting effects resulting from the B9 Proposals

The principal contribution made by setting is the appreciation of the ‘family’ of three

civic buildings facing the Burroughs. This relationship is unchanged by the proposed

development and the family of three buildings and the clear relationships between

them (style, period, materials, scale etc.) will continue to be appreciated from the

front, the main views from the Burroughs.

The proposed building will be visible only obliquely between the buildings in views

from the front and this will be in the context of buildings of similar scale and

materiality. This does not affect one’s ability to appreciate the architectural and

historic interest of any of the three listed buildings, either individually or as an

ensemble. For this reason, we do not consider that the proposed building alters any

appreciation of the status of the family of civic buildings, either symbolically or

visually.


Setting effects resulting from the Fenella and Ravensfield Proposals

Turning now to the Fenella and Ravensfield Site, the new buildings have been

conceived as a ‘family’ of three separate buildings, distinct in form, architectural

design and function but unified as a family through their related uses, scale, siting

and materiality. These materials and the shaped roof form of the taller central

element relate the proposals to the listed buildings opposite.

This tripartite structure ensures that the buildings are read distinctly, and respond to

the family of civic buildings opposite.

The buildings have a defined ground floor with active glass frontages, providing a

welcoming entrance with a human scale at street level.

The form of the new buildings follows the requirements of the brief, to provide a

mixed-use development as part of the Middlesex University Estate. The three

buildings would read as a family, separated by townscape gaps which break up the

overall impression of the massing and reflect their individual architectural

expressions which would differentiate between the uses accommodated within. The

grain is therefore considered appropriate to the buildings’ context, responding to

ensemble of the three listed buildings opposite.

In terms of materials, the Proposed Development incorporates brick and stone

dressings, reflecting the wider campus character and architecture. The theatre block

and library block in particular reflect ‘solid’ civic uses which are in keeping with the

ensemble to the west of the Burroughs.

The glazing at ground floor would have a contemporary appearance, whilst the

regular, rectangular fenestration provides a modern response to the window pattern

of the library building opposite.


The materiality is consistent with that used in its context, and wouldn’t jar or compete

with the listed buildings.

In terms of scale, the buildings would be consistent with the prevailing height of

Usher Hall to the north, befitting the theatre use. The mass increases towards the

middle of the site frontage with the Burroughs, before stepping down to the at the

southern, library end. At roof level, the articulation and use of setbacks and garden

spaces reduces the appearance of the massing. A contemporary version of a

mansard, proposed for the central section, corresponds to the traditional roof forms

opposite.

Its architectural composition is a well-considered contextual approach. The detailing

at ground and top floors give the building a defined character and differentiate its

appearance from the library opposite.

The proposed development also introduces a greater level of active frontage than

the existing condition, including the new library. The function would link the Site with

the former library opposite, which would be understood as part of the same campus

context.

To the rear, the scale decreases toward the residential development beyond, again

reflecting the use and responding to its context. At lower levels, the buildings have

been well-articulated, to create a pleasing ensemble with a human scale. Think we

need to round off on this point and scale relative to the buildings opposite –

concluding that the buildings balance the Burroughs but do not compete.

The new landscaping scheme would create a more welcoming pedestrian and visitor

environment, and better integrate the buildings into the streetscene. These would

also facilitate improved access and connectivity between the listed buildings to the

west, also within the campus, and the Site.


As a whole,we consider that the Proposed Development would be an attractive, high

quality addition to the setting of the listed buildings, which would improve the

contribution made by the Site to their setting.

The three listed building comprise a legible ensemble, which make a mutual

contribution to the respective setting of each. The ability to appreciate the three

buildings as a group is an important aspect which makes a notable contribution to

their setting.

This is best done from the east side of The Burroughs, oriented west towards their

front elevations. The Proposed Development would not affect these views, and from

this perspective, any setting impact would be peripheral to the buildings’ principal

appreciation.

The new development would be larger than the existing, underscaled development,

and would frame The Burroughs in views north and south, improving the symmetry

of the listed ensemble.

The articulation at roof level (including through a modern mansard floor) and use of

setbacks will reduce the effect of the massing, and maintain the primacy of the listed

cluster.

Our assessment finds that the intrinsic heritage value of the civic buildings would

not be affected. The Fire Station, Town Hall and Library would remain as good

examples of 20th century buildings of this type, and the ability to appreciate the

ensemble as a group would not change.

The manner in which we understand the importance of the family of three civic

buildings within a suburban context would be preserved.


The architectural interest of the three, their collective and individual use of

harmonious materials, detailing, and their collective historic interest as part of a

phase of municipal resources for the growing suburb of Hendon, would be unaffected.

Thus, the listed buildings retain their prominence as part of the civic ensemble,

enhancing the development’s destination identity as part of a comprehensive

masterplan for the campus as a whole. The immediate setting of the Town Hall will

be further improved through the provision of high quality public realm.

The proposals also provide an improved setting for the nearby listed Town Hall and

Fire Station buildings through the transformation of its underscaled and poor quality

surroundings to an attractive and high quality development that will encourage its

public use. The rear of the existing clinic in particular is a back of house space

dominated by amenities such as bin stores and parking areas and is not welcoming

to visitors or passers-by. This space, which currently detracts from the setting of the

fire station and library, will be enhanced.

Our analysis has produced not just a finding of no harm by virtue of development

within the settings of the three listed buildings. There are net enhancements to the

appreciation of the grade II listed Library, town hall and fire station, through the

removal of an element abutting a non-original part of the building and the associated

unattractive back of house area. That benefit derives from a comprehensive,

managed solution comprising the replacement of an unattractive abutting structure

and focussing on the ensemble of listed civic buildings at the core of a high quality

new development.

In reaching our conclusions we have regard to the high quality of the proposed

buildings, their active frontages and uses and the quality of public realm proposed in

the immediate setting of the civic buildings.


The susceptibility of the receptors is judged to be Medium which results in a

Moderate sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact to the receptors.

The Proposed Development would give rise to a Minor Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.

The susceptibility of the Library is judged to be Medium, because the works to the listed building will preserve its heritage value, and the works to the setting will not impede the appreciation of its historic and architectural interest, which results in a Moderate sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact to the Town Hall

by virtue of the link to the annexe and changes to its setting from the B9 and Fenella

and Ravensfield Sites. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Minor Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.

The susceptibility of the Fire Station is judged to be Medium which results in a

Moderate sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact to the receptor,

arising from the changes to its setting. The Proposed Development would give rise

to a Minor Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and

permanent.

Conservation Areas Hendon Church End Conservation Area

In terms of the replacement buildings, and when the Site and CA are considered as

a whole, we consider that the site should be capable of accommodating the scale of

residential accommodation proposed as a matter of principle to reflect the ever

evolving suburbanization of this part of Hendon. The proposed development reflects


the latest chapter of development of the site in a series of redevelopments that

commenced in the 19th Century. The site has, in the past, accommodated dense

residential development.

The scale and mass of the proposals has been refined throughout the design

process and in consultation with Officers and Historic England. The massing has

been carefully considered across the Site to provide coherent architectural forms

that relate to each other and that respond to the character of the conservation area.

The scale of the Proposed Development at the Meritage Centre site modulates to

reflect local contextual influences and the sensitivities of surrounding residential

properties. The proposed development is lowest where it fronts Church end at two

storeys. It rises to three storeys here it fronts Church Terrace where development is

generally denser. The proposed development improves the Church Terrace

Frontage by establishing a more legible frontage to the street and improving the

streetscape generally.

The proposed development also maintains a permeability that reflects the original

historic lane layout in the convergence of Church Lane, Church Terrace and Church

End.

The materiality of the new buildings has been carefully considered to respond to the

surrounding context, drawing from elements such as the traditional brickwork, and

the arrangement of fenestration. The variety in materiality and form of the buildings

breaks down the mass of the buildings and reflects the grain of the surroundings

The development will be visible in a number of views within the conservation area

as identified in the conservation area appraisal. The redevelopment of the site will

not affect the majority of the views identified in the appraisal.


The principal impact will be on views along Church End towards the church, which

will be opened up to view and should be considered an enhancement. Views of the

site when approaching from the west will also be enhanced.

Demolition of the existing buildings

The existing Meritage Centre buildings at the Site comprise two modern late 20th

century utilitarian (up to) two storey brick structures. Taken as a whole, the modern

character, unsympathetic brickwork and ‘boxy’ appearance of the buildings mean

that the building is a detracting feature in Conservation Area and the setting of St

Mary’s Church.

No. 28 Church End makes a slight positive contribution to the character and

appearance of the conservation area.

Considering the site as a whole in its existing condition, we consider that this is an

overall detraction to the character and appearance of a conservation area.

This negative effect of the existing site is apparent in the principal route through the

conservation area (Church End) in both directions and from Church Terrace to the

rear of the site. The site is also glimpsed in views from Greyhound Hill and detracts

from the approach from that direction.

To note, the CA as a whole extends beyond the site, and takes in the historic

ensemble focussed on St Mary’s Church, as well as the approach, and open space

to the north and west. Its focus is the historic village-like arrangement at Church End,

comprised of the Greyhound Public House, Church and Church Farmhouse, though

this is a limited enclave which reads as a group separate from the more varied,

modern development in the environs.


It is clear from the map regression at Section 5.0 of Appendix 3 that the present

appearance of the Site dates from the latter part of the 20th century, and has no

particular importance in the history or character of the CA. This part of the CA has

been subject to considerable change distinct from the historic Church End core

focused around the pub and church, and views from Greyhound Hill. This latter, more

significant part of the CA is not materially affected by the proposals.

The loss of the existing Meritage Centre buildings is not considered to cause any

harm to the Conservation Area, because they are of no intrinsic interest and make

no contribution to its character or appearance.

The effect of the loss of the buildings (including No. 28 Church End) should be

considered in terms of their effect on the Conservation Area as a whole.

The demolition of no. 28 would self-evidently not nullify the value of the Conservation

Area as a whole, and the ability to appreciate its special character and appearance

would be preserved.

This consideration would plainly need to take in to account the demolition of the

Meritage Centre, a detracting element as it is not possible to consider the merits of

the replacement buildings without considering the condition of the buildings they

replaced.

Overall, we consider that the proposals provide an opportunity to improve the

contribution made by the Site to the character and appearance of the Conservation

Area and the setting of St Mary’s Church, and at least preserve the setting and

significance of the ensemble of historic buildings to the west.

We reach this same conclusion whether we consider the contribution of the site as

a whole makes to the character and appearance of the conservation area (insofar


as it is located within the conservation area boundary), or whether, as a starting point,

we consider the effect of the buildings to be demolished.

In both cases, we identify that there is the potential to be some harm to the character

and appearance of the conservation area by the loss of No. 28 Church End, but this

is capable of being outweighed by the corresponding loss and replacement if the

Meritage Centre and when considering the Proposed Development as a whole.

The development does not have any material effect on one’s understanding of the

historic core of the conservation area to the west of the site or the open area to the

north.

The building at 13 to 21 Church End detracts from the setting of the Conservation

Area. We conclude that the 13-21 redevelopment is appropriate in its context and

does not affect the setting of the conservation area or any listed building.

The PDSA building at the Meritage Centre site also detracts from the setting of the

conservation area and we consider there to be an enhancement from its

redevelopment on the setting of the conservation area.

The development of Blocks 3 and 4 at the Meritage Centre site outside the

conservation area enhances the setting of the conservation area by removing

existing unattractive building and replacing them with buildings of an appropriate

scale and design.

The susceptibility of the receptor is judged to be Medium which results in a Moderate sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Low magnitude of impact on the receptor,

because the assessment relates to the Conservation Area as whole. As set out at

Section 5.0 of Appendix 3, the heritage value of the Conservation Area is derived


principally from the enclave of buildings to the west of the Site, which will remain

unaltered. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Minor Beneficial (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.

The Burroughs Conservation Area

The intrinsic character of The Burroughs as an historic linear route to and from

Hendon Town Centre would not change. The Proposals would not appear in any

views identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The Proposals would change

an element of the CA’s setting to the north-east, through the replacement of the

existing unrelieved hardstanding at the car park with new, high quality university

development.

The university uses to the north is noted in the CA Appraisal, and reinforce its

transitional character through the movement of students between the university

buildings and Hendon Central Station. The Proposals would continue and reinforce

this movement, which is appropriate to the CA’s historic use.

The materials of the Proposed Development would respond to the context in the

setting of the CA to the north, and sit comfortably within their context.

The scale and footprint of development at this end of the CA is greater than the finer

grain residential development to the south and east, as reflected by Hendon

Methodist Church. At six storeys, the new buildings at the Fenella and Ravensfield

site would introduce additional height to the Site, though this would be moderated

through the varied building line, set-backs and the positioning of the new Library

rotunda closest to the Conservation Area. This would introduce an attractive new

element on the former car park land, and define the northern part of the junction with

Egerton Gardens, seen in conjunction with the Church.

We therefore consider that the Proposed Development would be an attractive feature

in the setting of the Conservation Area.


The susceptibility of the receptors is judged to be Low which results in a

Low/Moderate sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Neutral magnitude of impact to the

receptors. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Neutral effect (not significant). The effect will be direct, local and permanent.

Locally Listed Buildings Church House, 49 Church End

The Proposed Development has no direct effect on the asset. The development will

improve the appearance backdrop of the building when approach from the west.

The susceptibility of the receptor to the proposed development is judged to be low

which results in a low sensitivity.

The Proposed Development would have a Negligible magnitude of impact to the

receptor. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Negligible effect (not significant). The effect will be indirect, local and permanent.

Rose Cottage


improve the appearance backdrop of the building when approach from the south and

the west and will enable the building to be appreciated without the detracting

Meritage Centre within its setting.





receptor. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Negligible effect (not significant). The effect will be indirect, local and permanent.

Chequers Public House, 20 Church End

The Proposed Development does not affect the asset directly and does not affect

any aspect of the building’s setting that contributes to its heritage value.



The Proposed Development would have a neutral magnitude of impact to the

receptor. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Neutral effect (not significant). The effect will be indirect, local and permanent.

Greyhound Inn Public House


improve the appearance backdrop of the building when approach from the south and

the west and will enable the building to be appreciated without the detracting

Meritage Centre within its setting.




receptors. The Proposed Development would give rise to a Negligible effect (not significant). The effect will be indirect, local and permanent.


Non-Designated Heritage Receptor 28 Church End

No. 28 is considered to be a non-designated heritage receptor. This is distinct from

an assessment of the impact of the development and its demolition on the

conservation area and it is important that the two assessments are not conflated.

Any harm to a non-designated heritage asset is therefore capable of being offset by

a development of a high architectural and urban design quality, contributing to the

status and vitality of the area, as well as other planning benefits. This is a distinct

assessment from whether the development causes harm to the conservation area.

In this case, the proposals as a whole comprise the replacement of the unattractive,

utilitarian Meritage Centre building with a new high quality student accommodation

development and community use.

No. 28 would be demolished as part of the proposals, which would result in the total

loss of its significance. This could, to a degree, be mitigated through historic building

recording and agreed by an appropriately worded condition if the planning authority

considered that to be necessary.

However, we consider that the loss of the building is outweighed by the heritage

benefits of the Proposed Development.

Applying the matrices strictly, the effect is Minor Adverse upon the non-designated

heritage asset (not significant).


Cumulative Construction and demolition

The assessment of cumulative demolition and construction effects is primarily a

qualitative assessment.

The demolition and construction of the cumulative schemes identified in Chapter 2

of the ES would introduce additional noise, traffic and visual influences which are

unattractive and which detract from the wider area in which the receptors are

experienced, and for that reason, the combined effect of the construction and

demolition of the Proposed Development and cumulative schemes would continue

to have a Low magnitude of impact, resulting in Minor Adverse likely effects. The

effect is indirect, temporary, short -term and not significant.

Operation Phase

We do not consider there to be any cumulative heritage impacts arising from the

cumulative effects of schemes summarised in Chapter 2 nor:

• Fuller Street Car Park; • Prince of Wales Estate Landscape Improvements; • Daniel Almshouses Landscape Improvements • Linear Woodland landscape improvements • Former Quinta Club, Mays Lane

In the case of the Quinta Club and Linear Woodland landscape improvements, these

are sufficiently distant that no cumulative impacts arise with regards to any heritage

asset under assessment. Both the Prince of Wales Estate and Daniel Almshouses

are located outside the Church End Conservation Area and the proposed landscape

improvements do not have any material effect on its setting. While the Daniel

Almshouses are themselves listed, the nature of the works does not generate a


cumulative impact with the Proposed Development at any of the three sites, either

directly, or indirectly with respect to any other heritage asset.

The Fuller Street Car Park is sufficiently distant from the boundary of the

conservation area and is not located within the setting of any listed building and so

therefore there is no cumulative impact on any heritage asset.

The table below provides a summary of the effects on built heritage receptors.

Map Ref

Receptor Heritage Value

Susceptibility to Change

Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact (Operation)

Likely Effect (Operation)

Likely Effect

(D&C)

Likely Effect

(Cumulative)

Listed Buildings 1 Parish

Church of St Mary

High Low Low Low Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

2 Church Farmhouse Museum

High Low Low Nil None None None

3 Tombs in St Mary’s Churchyard of: Conquest Jones, John Jones, Sir Joseph Ayloffe, John Haley, Henry Jaynes, Susannah Frye

Medium Low Low Negligible Negligible Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Negligible Beneficial

4 Mausoleum of Philip Rundell in St Mary’s Churchyard


Minor Adverse

Negligible Benficial

5 Unidentified Chest Tomb 15 metres south east of Church in St Mary’s Churchyard


Minor Adverse

Negligible Benficial

6 Headstone of Thomas Thatcher in St Mary’s Churchyard


Minor Adverse


7 Model Farm, the Milking Parlour

Medium Low Low Nil None None None

8 Daniel Almshouses

Medium Low Low Nil None Minor Adverse

None


9 The Vicarage


10 Hendon Fire Station

Medium Medium Moderate Low Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

11 Montfort House


12 Milestone (London 7) on wall of no. 161 Brent Street between Church Road and Lodge


13 Hendon Library


Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

14 Hendon Town Hall

Medium Low Moderate Low Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

15 16 47 and 55,

The Burroughs NW4

Medium Medium Low Nil None None None

17 44-52, The Burroughs NW4


18 Burroughs House


19 25, The Burroughs NW4, and Ivey House


20 9 and 11, The Burroughs


21 Hendon War Memorial


Conservation Areas A Hendon

Church End CA

Medium Low Moderate Medium Moderate Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Moderate Beneficial

B The Burroughs Hendon CA

Medium Low Low/ Moderate

Neutral Neutral None Neutral

Locally Listed Buildings The

Greyhound Inn Public House

Low Low Low Negligible Negligible Beneficial

Minor Adverse


Church House, 49 Church End


Minor Adverse


Rose Cottage, Church End


Minor Adverse


The Chequers Public House

Low Low Low Nil None Minor Adverse

None

Non Designated Heritage Receptor


28 Church End

Very Low Medium Low/ Moderate

Medium Minor Adverse applying professional judgment

n/a Minor Adverse applying professional judgment

Townscape

The three HTVIAs at Appendices 1-3 have set out an assessment of the townscape

effects of each of the Sites in turn. The Proposed Development comprises the

development across the three sites. This section provides an assessment of the

effects of the Proposed Development as a whole.

Our assessment of the effects on each character area is set out below.

Character Area 1

The proposals remove the current imposition provided by the Building 9 infill,

improving movement across the Site. The B9 development and associated

landscaping will invite exploration between the family of civic buildings beyond and

reinforces the sense of a ‘campus’ space in what presently has the feel of a backland

area.

The principal façade of the library is an attractive feature in the streetscape and will

be preserved as is, which will retain the historic frontage to The Burroughs.

The footprint of the proposed new building successfully transitions from the width of

the library to the Town Hall Annex to enable the provision of high quality public realm

and reflects the wider urban grain of the campus area.

In terms of scale, this element of the Proposals has been developed to maintain the

pre-eminence of the listed Town Hall and Library. The height of the B9 building is

consistent with the library and the Annex building behind, sitting comfortably relative

to the eaves height of the Town Hall Annex and the roof from has been designed to

transition to the height of the library.


The roof form has been designed so the upper floor adopts a series of setbacks,

which significantly reduces the prominence of the upper storey within the street

scene. Overall the building reflects the wider campus character on the western side

of the Burroughs in terms of scale and mass.

The scale is considered appropriate and is articulated through its rhythm, with

setbacks and variations in treatment to differentiate between the new fabric and

historic listed buildings. The rhythm of fenestration provides a contemporary

response to the library, whilst the use of red brick ties the new structure into its

context. The glazed link portions provide a visible reading of base, middle and top.

These are considered to be consistent with the campus character of the area.

The changes to the rear of the library introduce a more active and open frontage,

which provides a better relationship both in building line and form to the Town Hall

and adjacent Fire Station.

A new active frontage is also proposed along the space between the two, to the

north. This would be a significant townscape benefit; introducing natural surveillance

and vibrant ground-floor activity to an area which currently comprises bin stores and

utilitarian structures.

The modulation of the roofline at the upper level breaks the proposed development

down into composite parts, this is further enhanced through the glazed link sections

between the parts of the building.

The pattern of fenestration, comprising rectangular, recessed openings at regular

intervals, draws inspiration from the library and the town hall extension, integrating

comfortably into this context.


The materiality has likewise drawn from the palette of the library and town hall

buildings, and provides a contemporary response to their character.

The permeability of the Site and streetscene would be improved for those using the

building, with entrances on either side of the new block. The Proposed Development

represents an improvement in design quality on the site, and is considered to

appropriately scaled as part of the civic core of the University.

We turn now to the Fenella and Ravensfield element of the Proposed Development,

which is within the same character area.

The new development would improve the appearance of the linear route along The

Burroughs by widening the street frontage, creating a sense of symmetry with the

opposite Town Hall/ Library frontage, and implementing an improved scheme of

landscaping.

The buildings have been devised as a family of three separate buildings, with gaps

between at higher levels. This reflects the civic and campus character of the existing

uses on the other side of the Burroughs.

• The form has developed to meet the following needs of the development: • To accommodate the library and new improved facilities such as archive facilities, • To accommodate improved performing arts facilities • To accommodate student accommodation. • To accommodate community facilities (such as citizens advice bureau and retail

facilities).

The undistinguished Fenella and Ravensfield buildings and car parking within the

Site will be removed and replaced by high quality architecture that defines new public

realm on the east side of The Burroughs. The new buildings will be arranged within

new, high quality landscaping, which would create a sense of space in front of the

new buildings to reflect the landscaping arrangement of the listed buildings opposite.


New pedestrian links would extend through the Site to The Burroughs, and the

ensemble of listed buildings to the west and the heart of the university campus to

the northwest. The buildings and the unified landscaping scheme across the area

extends and reinforces the campus character across the Burroughs.

While the proposals for Building B9 are submitted under a separate application, the

proposed new building B9 and the proposals for Fenella and Ravensfield both

directly affect Character Area 1. Importantly, the B9 proposals remove the current

imposition provided by the Building 9 infill, improving movement across the Site. The

B9 development and associated landscaping will invite exploration between the

family of civic buildings beyond and enhance the sense of a ‘campus’ space in what

presently has the feel of a backland area. This reinforces the townscape character

along with the Fenella and Ravensfield Proposals.

The new buildings are set back from the boundary and are positioned so as to

separate the new development from the existing development along The Burroughs.

The buildings to the eastern side of the Burroughs are composed to be understood

as a family of three distinct buildings reflecting their uses; the performance arts

space, the student accommodation and the library. The overall form is well-

articulated with is a gap at upper floors between the central block and API and the

library is wholly separate with a new public realm route in between.

This creates a clear understanding of the separation of the different functions. The

performance arts and library buildings reflect their civic functions in terms of their

overall composition reflecting their ‘public’ uses.

The building line and orientation to the eastern side of the Burroughs responds to

comments received in pre-application discussions held with the Council. It also

means that the dense tree boundary at the east of the Site the buildings are


perceived through a green boundary composed of existing mature trees and new

planting, thus improving the existing green character of the area.

The scale and mass of the proposals has been refined throughout the design

process and in consultation with Officers. The massing has been carefully

considered across all buildings to provide coherent architectural forms that relate to

each other and that respond to their townscape context.

The mass and scale of the proposals reflects the overall masterplan brief to

accommodate the required enhancements to the library, performance arts space,

teaching facilities (with ancillary facilities) and student accommodation.

The scale of the Proposed Development modulates to reflect local contextual

influences and the sensitivities of surrounding residential properties.

To the east side of the Burroughs, the staggered form of the buildings, with the scale

reducing to the rear of the Site, creates a visually interesting frontage to The

Burroughs, whilst responding to the more domestic scale of development further east.

The height of the blocks at the southern and northern ends are at four storeys to

reflect Usher Hall to the north and Methodist Church to the south, as well as

responding to the general scale of the civic buildings to the west with increased

massing towards the middle of the site.

This massing creates an attractive composition in views along The Burroughs which

does not overwhelm or overbear on the existing buildings. These buildings are given

proportion through a defined bottom, middle and top to each of the massing blocks,

each reflecting the activities that are to take place within each block. The stepped

frontage, introducing landscaped areas at podium level emphasises the distinction

between the three blocks in views along the Burroughs.


The ground floor opening to The Burroughs frontage creates a human scale at

ground level.

The detailed design and materials of the proposed buildings have been developed

to a high degree and reflect materials found locally, and so accordingly, we consider,

are entirely appropriate.

The chosen materials palette is simple, and subtle variations in colour are used to

help define the architectural form and express the constituent elements of the

buildings.

To the east, the primary material is brick, with the academic character expressed

through to the simple, repetitive arrangement of the fenestration which reflects that

of the library itself, the Town Hall and the Annex.

The Site will provide active frontages created through large glazed windows at

ground floor level. The animation of the street scene, in place of the existing,

unwelcoming frontage, will improve the vitality of the area.

The two Sites flanking The Burroughs will create a new sense of destination as part

of the University, and the permeability of both Sites will be enhanced. The new

landscaping and pedestrian routes will provide enhanced opportunities for

movement between the Town Hall/ Library civic centre and the new accommodation

and performing arts centre to the east.

The trees that are a distinctive feature will continue to be focal points along the

eastern side of The Burroughs, positively contributing to the character of the

streetscene. Within the Site, new public realm and planting will assist in creating a

distinctive identify for the Site that will encourage movement into it.


The use of the new buildings would improve the experience of the Site and activate

the frontage to The Burroughs, creating welcoming, permeable addition to the

campus and streetscape. The relocation of the Library to this site reinforces the

university character, which together with the performing arts use would enhance the

opportunity for students to utilize the Site.

The new active frontages to the north and south of the Site would be a marked

improvement from the existing unrelieved hardstanding, comprising a significant

townscape benefit and improving the permeability of the Site.

The Proposals would reinforce the campus character of this part of Hendon,

improving its existing use as a university site, and creating a sense of destination,

with a public library and a performing arts centre which would invite visitors.

In terms of scale, the Proposals have been developed to present a varied building

line which modulates the effect of the massing. Garden spaces at upper levels would

contribute to a pleasing, established character, and the set-backs would not affect

the experience of the building at ground level.

We therefore identify a net townscape benefit to Character Area 1.

The susceptibility of this area to the Proposed Development is Medium, and its

sensitivity, accordingly, is Moderate. The magnitude of change would be Low.

Applying the matrices set out in the tables, the effect generated through the

Proposed Development would be Minor/Moderate. However, applying professional

judgement, the substantial urban design benefits generated through the Proposed

Development and the improvement in the visual quality of the Site is judged to result

in a Long Term Minor Beneficial Effect (not significant).


Character Area 2

The boundaries of this character area are broadly consistent with those of the

Church End Conservation Area. It covers the former village at Church End, which

has been substantially altered through the addition of infill development of varying

quality.

The Proposed Development would replace the existing, irregular array of buildings

at the Site with a high quality student accommodation development, residential

accommodation and community use.

First, this would be beneficial to the public realm, which would be enhanced through

the improvement of existing pedestrian routes alongside the churchyard and through

to the residential development to the east. At present, these have no natural

surveillance and are not well integrated into the townscape. These routes will reflect

the alignments of historic lanes.

Second, the new landscaping would relieve the urban environment and respond

positively to the established, vegetated character of the churchyard to the north.

Thirdly, the student accommodation use is appropriate to the existing purpose of the

Site, and would provide a much needed resource that responds to the existing

university use in the area. This would introduce a modern village character in the

wider setting of the historic centre. Whilst the two would be read separately, this

would be complementary.

The separate blocks will break up the appearance of the massing and create an

attractive environment, with new landscaping and pedestrian routes which reflect

and reinforce historic routes though the site. The blocks themselves are articulated

so as to read as a conjoined collection of smaller buildings, reinforced by variety in

height, materials and the articulated roof form.


The proposed development will contribute activity and animation (improving a

current relatively inactive site) from the new residents and visitors to the doctors’

surgery.

The susceptibility of this area to the Proposed Development is Medium, and its

sensitivity, accordingly, is Moderate. The magnitude of change would be Low.

Applying the matrices set out in the tables, the effect generated through the

Proposed Development would be Minor/Moderate. However, applying professional

judgement, the substantial urban design benefits generated through the Proposed

Development and the improvement in the visual quality of the Site is judged to result

in a Long Term Minor Beneficial Effect (not significant).

Character Area 3

This character area sits to the south of the Site, and comprises the linear route of

The Burroughs.

There would be no direct effect on the townscape character of this area. The new

development would invigorate the townscape character to the north, and reinforce

the use of this part of the town centre by visitors and pedestrians. The intrinsic

character of the townscape would remain the same.

The new building would be visible in some views north along The Burroughs, and

would reinforce the campus character of this part of the surrounding context. The

effect on Visual Amenity is considered as part of the Visual Impact Assessment.

The susceptibility of this area to the Proposed Development is Low, and its

sensitivity, accordingly, is Low. The magnitude of change would be Low. Applying

the matrices set out in the tables, the effect generated through the Proposed

Development would be Minor. However, applying professional judgement, the

Proposed Development would have no effect on the townscape quality of Character

Area 2, and is judged to result in a Long Term Neutral effect (significant).


Character Area 4: Wider Residential Development

Character Area 4 is a very large character area, comprising the suburban

development arranged in the vicinity of Hendon. Sub-area 4a shares a boundary

with character area 3, comprising Church End, and the Site of the Meritage

development. Given the scale and nature of the development, it is likely that

townscape receptors in the north-western parts of character area 4b will experience

a degree of change as a result of the proposals. These are likely to be caused by

the increase in pedestrian and vehicular activities brought by the new uses to be

accommodated on the Site.

.The existing contrast between the civic and residential uses would be reinforced.

The removal of the unattractive, unrelieved expanse of the hardstanding at the car

park would improve the appearance of the Site in the setting of the character area.

The effect on visual amenity from Egerton Gardens and Babington Road is

considered as part of the visual assessment, but in views from rear gardens, the

mature landscaping would provide some screening of the lower levels of the new

building. The replacement of the existing irregular elevation of the Victorian terrace

building with a new, well-considered building with an attractive elevation would

improve views towards the Site.

There are beneficial impacts identified in terms of the effect of Blocks 3 and 4 at the

Meritage Centre site on the townscape of Prince of Wales Road and Church Terrace

by improving the appearance and legibility of the street.

Overall, given the size of the character area and the scale of change which is limited

to the northern part of the character area, it is our judgement that the Proposed

Development would therefore have a low magnitude of Impact.



sensitivity, accordingly, is Low. The magnitude of change would be Negligible. The

effect generated through the Proposed Development would be Negligible. The likely

effect is Long Term Negligible Beneficial Effect (not significant).

Character Area 5: Open Space

This character area comprises the open space at Sunny Hill Park which falls partially

within the study area to the north.

The park predominantly comprises grassland, and offers significant views to the

north and west owing to its high elevation.

Towards the south-east of the park, and area formerly within the St Mary’s

Churchyard is now part of the public open space, and forms a transitional area

between the two.

The open spaces is bordered by residential development to the east and west–

mostly terraced or semi-detached in nature and dating from the late-C19 and early-

C20. This sense of enclosure is further emphasised by boundary walls, fencing and

vegetation, which filters and/or screens views south.


sensitivity, accordingly, is Low. The magnitude of change would be Negligible. The

effect generated through the Proposed Development would be Negligible. The likely

effect is Long Term Negligible Beneficial Effect (not significant).

Cumulative Impact

Demolition and Construction

The cumulative context is not considered to change the assessment and

construction effects of on any Character Area, which would remain Negligible


Adverse and which would be direct, short-term, temporary. This effect is not

significant.

We do not consider there to be any cumulative townscape impacts arising from the

cumulative effects of schemes summarised in Chapter 2 nor

• Prince of Wales Estate Landscape Improvements; • Daniel Almshouses Landscape Improvements • Linear Woodland landscape improvements • Former Quinta Club, Mays Lane


are sufficiently distant from the three Sites that no cumulative impacts arise with

regards to any impact on the character areas under assessment. There is no visual

connection between these two schemes and the three elements of the Proposed

development that are the subject of this EIA.

The Prince of Wales Estate and Daniel Almshouses will improve the landscaping of

minor areas within Character Area 4 but there is no cumulative impact arising from

these works.

Similarly, the Fuller Street Car Park development is located within Character Area 4.

While Block 3 of the Meritage Centre development is located within Character Area

4, there is no material change to the character as a whole when the two residential

blocks are considered cumulatively.

Character Area Townsca

pe value Susceptibility to change

Sensitivity Magnitude of impact

Likely effect (Operational)

Likely Effect (D&C)

Likely Effect (Cumulative)


1 Civic and Institutional Centre


Negligible adverse

Minor Beneficial

2 Church End Historic Settlement


Negligible adverse

Minor Beneficial

3 The Burroughs Medium Low Low/Moderate

Negligible Neutral Negligible adverse

Neutral

4 Wider Residential Development


Negligible adverse


5 Open Space Medium Low Low Negligible Nil Negligible adverse

Nil

Visual Impact

AVRs to represent each view are included at Section 9.0 of Appendices 1-3.

View 1: The Burroughs 1

EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated at a crossing point mid-way along The Burroughs, south

of the Library frontage, oriented north-east towards the Fenella and Ravensfield Site

opposite.

In the existing condition, the fore and middle ground are comprised primarily of the

open hardstanding of the road, flanked by wide pavements to either side, drawing

the viewer’s eye towards the vanishing point in the background.

The viewer would be aware of heavy traffic passing to and from the centre of Hendon

along the road.

In the middle ground, the low-rise range with pitched roofs can be seen, though the

projecting single storey extension at ground level are a detracting feature. Mature

vegetation contributes to a leafy, established visual character.


The viewer has an oblique view of the Hendon Town Hall to their left, though this is

not a position from which it is best appreciated.

The view is considered to have a Low to Medium value.

Visual receptors would primarily be pedestrians and road users.

The susceptibility of this visual receptor is judged to be Low. The sensitivity is Low to Moderate.

PROPOSED

The open character of the road would remain the same, and the viewer’s eye would

naturally follow the route of the road.

The new Fenella and Ravensfield building would be a new element to the right hand

side of the view.

The tripartite structure would read as three interrelated buildings from this position,

whilst the curved aspect facing the junction with Egerton Gardens provides an open

character to the corner, improving the quality of the public realm.

The varied building line reduces the appearance of the massing, and the positioning

of the tallest elements toward the centre of the site creates an attractive transition to

the north and south.

Whilst the materials are not illustrated, these are specified in the Design and Access

Statement and would be drawn from the character of surrounding development,

including red brick with stone banding creating a well-defined composition with a

defined top, middle and bottom.

The new library building reads as a similar sale to the Methodist Church in the

foreground.


Overall, the Proposals would improve the appearance of the Site from this position.

The likely effect is found to be Minor Beneficial to visual receptors.

This likely effect is Not Significant.


EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated adjacent to the Town Hall frontage, oriented north-east

towards The Burroughs and the Fenella and Ravensfield Site.

The view is oriented laterally across the road, and the viewer would be aware of busy

traffic passing each way to and from Hendon.

The bus stop in the centre of the view draws the viewer’s eye, whilst the

unremarkable shop fronts to the viewer’s left are an unattractive feature, with the

three-four storey terrace behind forming the tallest element in the view. The existing

vegetation gives the view an established character.



The susceptibility of visual receptors is judged to be Low. The sensitivity is Low to Moderate.

PROPOSED

In the Proposed, the middle ground of the view would comprise the rotunda, with an

enhanced, widened public realm at street level. The glazing at ground floor

contributes to a sense of permeability and a human scale at ground floor, whilst the

tighter banding of the storeys above and sloped roof of the top storey gives the

building a defined top, middle and bottom.


The viewer would also be aware of the new development to their left, which

continues the human scale at ground floor and improves the public realm in their

surroundings. The tallest elements are situated at the centre of the Site, which steps

down toward the north and south to respond to its context.

Whilst the viewpoint gives a narrow impression of the buildings’ appearance in their

context, the use of traditional materials would respond positively to the character of

surrounding development.



View 3: Egerton Gardens 1

EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated along Egerton Gardens, oriented west towards the rear of

the Fenella and Ravensfield Site and The Burroughs. . It would be experienced as

part of a kinetic sequence as the viewer moved along the road. Along with view 2.

The view has a transitional character; to the viewer’s right is an oblique view of

Hendon Methodist Church, and positioned at the curve in the road, the viewer can

see the irregular rear elevations of the buildings facing the east side of The

Burroughs, which include a range of plant, irregular fenestration, and mixed rear

extensions.

The front elevations of Hendon Library and Town Hall are partially visible in the

background of the view, though this is not the best position from which to appreciate

their heritage value, owing to the distance and interposing elements.



Visual receptors would primarily be pedestrians and road users, and residents of the

local area.


PROPOSED

In the Proposed condition, the existing irregular range would be replaced by the new

rotunda of the library building.

The curved elevation would provide an interesting, attractive feature in the view, and

the pitched top storey would reduce the appearance of the massing.

The projecting ground floor entrance would give the new building a human scale,

and provide a welcoming approach. The library use would be evident through the

glazing at ground floor.

To the viewer’s right, the new public realm and pedestrian route through the Site the

Fenella and Ravensfield would create a new view towards the Fire Station.

Whilst the Library and Town Hall would be obscured, this was not a position from

which their heritage value could be best appreciated.



View 4: Rear of dwellings to the north side of Egerton Road

EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated to the rear of dwellings along Egerton Road, oriented west

towards the rear of the Fenella and Ravensfield Site.


The view is contained by the dense evergreen vegetation in the foreground. There

is no visibility of the Site.

The view is considered to have a Low to Medium value. The susceptibility of visual

receptors is judged to be Low. The sensitivity is Low to Moderate.

PROPOSED

The Proposals would be entirely obscured by the existing vegetation. There would

be no effect on visual amenity.

The magnitude of impact would be Nil and the likely effect would be None. This

effect is not significant.

View 5: Egerton Gardens 2

EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated part way along Egerton Gardens, oriented west towards

The Burroughs. It would be experienced as part of a kinetic sequence as the viewer

moved along the road. Along with view 1.

The view has a largely domestic character, comprising the linear route of Babington

Road, lined with two storey houses set behind front gardens and driveways. The

mature vegetation gives the view an established character.

There is a marked difference in character from the domestic scale and use of the

buildings in the foreground and the civic centre beyond, and the viewer would be

aware of this sense of transition.

The viewer’s eye is drawn along the road towards the background, where part of

Hendon Library and the Town Hall can just be seen, though this is not a position

from which their heritage value can be best appreciated owing to the separating

distance and interposing structures.




local area.


PROPOSED

The domestic character of the fore and middle ground of the view would be

preserved.

In the background of the view, the rear parts of the Fenella and Ravensfield Site

would be visible.

The library would be seen along the route of the road. The curved elevation would

provide an interesting, attractive feature in the view, and the pitched top storey would

reduce the appearance of the massing.

The projecting ground floor entrance would give the new building a human scale,

and provide a welcoming approach. The library use would be evident through the

glazing at ground floor.

The building would be seen in conjunction with the houses on the right hand side of

the road. The character of the new building would be expressed through its

fenestration and the use of balconies to upper levels, drawing a visual distinction

with the houses in the foreground. The textured brick to the centre part of the

elevation, stone and glazing at ground floor and the set back at upper storey level

would give the building a defined top, middle and bottom, and would read as part of

a family with the adjacent new library.


The use of traditional materials such as red brick and stone dressings would tie the

building in to its context, providing an appropriate response to the houses visible in

the view. The sense of transition between the residential foreground and the civic

centre at The Burroughs would be reinforced.



View 6: Babington Road EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated part way along Babington Road, oriented west towards

The Burroughs and the Fenella Building.

The foreground of the view takes in the open space of the road, with narrow, paved

front gardens to the terraced housing on the north side of Babington Road. The

houses terminate the view to left field, owing to their scale and proximity. The

housing and Fenella building are understood separately by the viewer.

To the viewer’s right, the side elevation of the Fenella building can be seen, set

behind a wooden fence, further metal security fencing and a temporary tent structure.

The building has an unremarkable appearance, with large expanses of unrelieved

brickwork and an awkward interaction between the fenestration at first floor, and the

pitched room.

The fencing in the foreground has a hostile character, and the pedestrian footpath

adjacent to no. 10, which provides access to The Burroughs, does not appear

welcoming from this perspective.




local area.


PROPOSED

In the Proposed condition, the side elevation of the new building would be seen. The

use of red brick with contrasting banding would give the building a defined bottom,

middle and top, and the use of glass would contribute a human scale at ground floor.

The footpath would be improved as part of the new public realm proposals, and

natural surveillance provided by the new building would encourage its use.

Whilst taller than the existing building, the new development does not appear overly

large in its context; and sits below the parapet height of the houses adjacent from

this perspective. Of course, this would change as the viewer move around the locality.

For the reasons described above, the Proposed Development is considered to

improve visual amenity from this perspective.




EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated along The Burroughs, on the opposite pavement to the

Middlesex University Courtyard. It is oriented south, along the road.

The view takes in the linear feature of the road, oriented south. This is a kinetic view,

which would be experienced as part of a linear sequence as the viewer moved

further south.


The foreground takes in the dense hedge to the viewer’s left, and an oblique view of

the Fenella and Ravensfield Site, which makes no contribution to visual amenity and

has a squat appearance owing to the positioning of the roof and the fenestration.

Hendon Fire Station, opposite, is an attractive feature in the view, which marks the

location of the civic quarter in this part of Hendon.




PROPOSED

In the proposed condition, the character and composition of the view would remain

the same, with the linear route of the road flanked by civic and university

development.

The Fire Station would remain as a focal point in the view.

At the Fenella and Ravensfield Site, the view would be enlivened by the double

height outdoor space at the entrance to the performing arts centre, which would be

an attractive feature welcoming visitors to the building.

The use of red brick would respond to the prevailing character of surrounding

development, and the enhanced public realm would improve the appearance of the

streetscene. Whilst taller than the existing, the new building would not overpower its

surrounding development owing to the varied building line and the width of the road.




View 8: Middlesex University Courtyard

EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated on the west side of The Burroughs, directly in front of the

Middlesex University Courtyard. It is oriented south-east towards the Fenella and

Ravensfield Site.

The fore and middle ground of the view has an open character, derived from the

linear pathways and rectilinear lawns. There is little visual interest and the space is

devoid of features to draw the eye.

The linear route of The Burroughs passes laterally across the view in the middle

ground, and the viewer would be aware of traffic passing to and from the town centre.

At the Site, the present 20th century building is partially obscured by the mature trees

in the middle ground. The building appears underscaled in its context owing to the

awkward interaction of the pitched roof and first floor windows, and the large

expanses of unrelieved red brick make no particular contribution to visual amenity.


Visual receptors would primarily be pedestrians and visitors to the university

buildings.


PROPOSED

The fore and middle ground would remain the same.

In the background of the view, the new development would introduce an attractive,

varied ensemble which responds to its context through the use of materials.


This viewpoint is closest to the entrance to the performing arts centre, with a double

height outdoor space creating a welcoming front. The rectangular recessed

fenestration and use of materials at second floor would differentiate the top portion,

and create visual interest. The taller elements of the building beyond are well-

articulated, with a varied building line making a positive contribution to the

streetscene and reducing the effect of the massing. These would be partially and

seasonally occluded by the existing mature trees.

Whilst taller than the existing, the new building would not overpower its surrounding

development owing to the varied building line and the width of the road.

The Proposed Development would be beneficial to visual amenity from this position.



View 9: Hendon Library/ Fire Station Side Street EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated part way along the narrow access street between Hendon

Library and the Fire Station. It is oriented east towards The Burroughs and the

Fenella and Ravensfield Site.

The view would be experienced as part of a kinetic sequence as the viewer moved

toward The Burroughs.

The fore and middle ground of the view have a functional character, derived from

the unrelieved elevations to each side. The use of materials, including the stone

ground floor to the fire station, communicate their civic function.


The Fenella and Ravensfield Site can be seen in the background, and has a

vernacular, unattractive character with an underscaled appearance and

unsympathetic materiality.

The mature vegetation along the road softens the urban environment and provides

screening of the background of the view.



buildings.


PROPOSED

The unattractive, underscaled development at the Fenella and Ravensfield Site

would be replaced with a new, high quality university building. The larger openings

at ground floor, and set- back glazed top floor give the building a defined top, middle

and bottom. The height of the building is varied and the central portion set back,

which responds to the projecting front portion of the library to the viewer’s right.

The use of materials would provide a contemporary response to the prevailing

context.

The new development would be beneficial to visual amenity from this viewpoint.



View 10: The Burroughs (3)

EXISTING


This viewpoint is situated close to the south-eastern corner of the Middlesex

University building frontage, oriented west.

The view is oriented laterally across the landscaped space in front of the university

building, with the route of the road passing from the viewer’s left to right in the middle

ground. The planting in the foreground contributes to an attractive open character,

though the rectilinear lawns and pathways toward the middle provide little of visual

interest. The viewer’s eye is drawn toward the right hand side of the view, along the

path.

In the background of the view, the present buildings at the Fenella and Ravensfield

Site can be seen. These are partially obscured by the existing mature trees along

the road, and are of no particular visual or architectural interest.




PROPOSED

The fore and middle ground of the view would remain the same.

In the background of the view, the new development at the Fenella and Ravensfield

site would provide visual interest, with a double height entrance space closest to the

viewer, marking the performing arts centre. The rhythmic use of columns, recessed

fenestration and use of materials at second floor would differentiate the top portion,

and create visual interest.


The building’s taller elements are well-articulated, with a varied building line making

a positive contribution to the streetscene and reducing the effect of the massing.

These would be partially and seasonally occluded by the existing mature trees.

The Proposed Development would make a positive contribution to visual amenity

from this position.




EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated at a crossing point part way along The Burroughs, close to

the Fire Station, oriented south. The viewer would be aware of busy traffic passing.

The foreground of the view takes in the open space of the road, and the viewer’s eye

is drawn towards the side elevation of Hendon Methodist Church and the Brampton

Court block of flats in the mid-distance.

The mature trees to the viewer’s left provide relief from the urban environment, as

well as partially screening the unattractive Ravensfield building behind. The car park

at the Site is also visible, and is a detracting feature with striped barriers and

unrelieved hardstanding.

Whilst not within the frame, the viewer would be aware of the ensemble of listed

buildings to their right, which would draw the viewer’s eye.





PROPOSED

In the Proposed condition, the linear route of the road would remain the focus, and

the side elevations of the Methodist Church and Brampton Court would continue to

draw the viewer’s eye.

The new building would replace the unattractive Ravensfield frontage with new

public realm, retaining the existing mature trees which would continue to provide

screening.

The new space would widen the pavement, and invite the viewer into the space.

The colonnaded entranced and use of glazing at ground floor would give the building

a human scale, and whilst not within the frame, the viewer would be aware of the

upper storeys, which utilise traditional materials to sit comfortably within the

surrounding context.


from this position.



View 12: Hendon Library/ Building 9 Side Street 1

EXISTING

This views is situated close to the library and town hall frontage, oriented along the

space between. This is a kinetic view, which would be experienced as part of a

sequence as the viewer moved along the path.


The viewer’s focus would be on the frontages of the two buildings, to their left and

right, or on wayfinding into the site.

The view has a contained character, derived from the flanking two buildings. The

regular, rectangular fenestration to the library is an attractive feature, and the

viewer’s eye is drawn to the area of planting in the middle ground of the view.

The single storey building adjoining B9 is partially visible in the middle ground, set

behind the library and beyond the planted area. It has a squat, underscaled

appearance, with unattractive contrasting brickwork and a flat roof, and is a

detracting feature in the view.



buildings.


PROPOSED

Those elements which make a positive contribution to the view would be retained,

and the rhythm of the fenestration continued in the new addition to the rear of the

library.

The scale would sit comfortably between the two parts of the listed structure, and

the use of string courses would respond to their character, whilst giving the new


The use of red brick would improve the appearance of this part of the view, providing

a more sympathetic response to the host building than the existing B9.



from this position.




EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated further along the public footpath between the library and

town hall. This is a kinetic view, which would be experienced as part of a sequence

as the viewer moved along the path.

The viewer’s focus would be on the linear route of the footpath, and the arched

opening ahead.

The view has a contained character, derived from the flanking two buildings. The

single storey building is a prominent element in the middle of the view, and has a

squat, vernacular character, with contrasting brickwork, unsympathetic fenestration

and a dilapidated appearance with plant growth at parapet level.

The building is a detracting feature in the view.


Visual receptors would primarily be pedestrians, and visitors to the university

buildings.


PROPOSED


The character and composition of the view would remain the same. The viewer’s

attention would be further focussed along the linear route to the arched entrance in

the background, through the continued line of the new building.

The scale would sit comfortably between the two parts of the listed structure, and

the use of string courses would respond to their character, whilst giving the new


The use of red brick would improve the appearance of this part of the view, providing

a more sympathetic response to the host building than the existing B9.


from this position.




EXISTING

This viewpoint is situated part way along the route between the Library and Town

Hall, oriented back towards The Burroughs. This is a kinetic view, which would be

experienced as part of a sequence as the viewer moved along the path.

The middle of the view comprises the open landscaped space between the Town

Hall and B9, which has an attractive, contained quality. The view is framed to the

right by the flank wall of the Town Hall, and the rhythmic fenestration, stone sills and

string courses, and pointed gables make a positive contribution to visual amenity.

To the viewer’s left is Building 9, which contrasts with the other buildings in its scale

and materiality. The single storey structure to the rear of the library is an unattractive

feature, with metal shuttering and an unsympathetic, mid-20th century expression.


Whilst the listed buildings are prominent elements in the view, this is not the best

position from which to appreciate their heritage value; their front elevations, seen

from The Burroughs, are the principal expression of this.

In the background, the Victorian terrace at the Fenella and Ravensfield Site is

partially visible, along with the trees beyond.



buildings.


PROPOSED

Those elements which make a positive contribution to the view would be retained,

and the contained character reinforced by the continued building line to the viewer’s

right.

Whilst from this position, the new building sits above the parapet of the library, this

is not a position from which its heritage value is best appreciated. The use of glazing

would give the new building a lightweight appearance, whilst the red brick would tie

it in to its built context.

The view to the background would be terminated by the new library. Its curved

elevation would provide an interesting, attractive feature in the view, and the pitched

top storey would reduce the appearance of the massing.

The library use would be evident through the glazing at ground floor and provide a

welcoming approach for students moving through the campus complex.


The building sits below the parapet of the library from this perspective, though this

would change as the viewer moved closer. The two would, however, be understood

separately.


from this position.



View 15 – Junction of Church End and Church Road

EXISTING

This view is located within the conservation area looking north along Church End.

From in front of the Daniels Almshouses. It is identified as a key view within the

conservation area. It forms the basis of a kinetic view (along with views 18 and 19)

as one passes along Church End towards the historic core of the conservation area.

Receptors will be pedestrians and road users.

The foreground of the view contains No 13-21 Church End (which is outside of the

conservation area is outside the conservation area) at three storeys tall. It is

unattractive although it is largely concealed by the mature trees in the landscaping

area to its southern flank.

On the opposite side of the road, the open green area enclosed behind railings with

prominent mature vegetation dominates the view.

At the periphery of the view, to the right, one senses the more commercial character

of Church Road, marked by the Claddagh Ring public house.


The railings and alignment of Church End draw the viewers eye into the view and

the flank of the former Chequers public house is visible with its varied roof form over

two storeys.

The Meritage Centre is visible and terminates the view in the distance where Church

End bends towards the west.

The overall character of the view is a suburban one. St Marys Church is not visible

in this view.

The view is considered to have a Low to Medium value. The susceptibility of visual


PROPOSED

The unattractive 13-21 Church End is replaced with a new building, one storey taller.

The proposed buildings is of an improved design compared to the existing building,

It remains largely concealed behind mature vegetation.

The principal elements in the view remain unaffected by the proposed development.

It does not change the receptors’ experience of the Chequers public house, the open

space, dense vegetation or the commercial fringe to the right of the receptor.

The existing Meritage Centre is is no longer present, and no longer terminates the

view, with the greenery behind now present. The proposed building on the site of the

Meritage Centre is visible and utilizes contextual materials. Due to interposing

vegetation, only the ground floor is perceptible.



View 16 Prince of Wales Road

EXISTING


View 16 is along Prince of Wales Road looking north. The receptors will primarily be

residents of the Prince of Wales Estate, entering the residential area from Church

End. In the foreground is a two storey yellow brick residential building surrounded

by a timber boundary.

The focus of the view is the PDSA which is an unattractive and low quality building

of 1-1.5 storeys. Two storey residential buildings are visible to the right of the

receptor.

Distant mature trees are visible behind the PDSA, and along Prince of Wales Road.

The rear of the Meritage Centre (within the conservation area) is visible in the view

and represents a detracting element in the view.

The view is considered to have a Very Low value. The susceptibility of visual

receptors is judged to be Medium. The sensitivity is Low.

PROPOSED

The unattractive PDSA is no longer present and replaced with a four storey

residential building of good design quality using appropriate materials which

becomes the focus of the view.

To the left, a three storey building (again of good design quality and appropriate

materials) and provides a more legible frontage to the street which is framed by both

new buildings. The appearance of the street and townscape is improved overall.

The existing Meritage Centre is no longer visible, and the view is terminated by

pleasant and attractive dense vegetation.

The setting of the conservation area is enhanced.


The likely effect is likely to be Minor/Moderate Beneficial.


View 17 Greyhound Hill

EXISTING

View 17 is part of a sequence of kinetic views east along Greyhound Hill into North

End. The receptors are pedestrians and traffic including residents moving along the

roads and users of the church and pub buildings.

The suburban nature of the view is dominated by the road itself, flanked by the locally

listed Church House and Model Farm House.

The ‘summit’ of the incline on the road towards Church End is marked by the existing

unattractive and plainly modern Meritage Centre although it is screened to a degree

by existing mature trees.

The Grade II* listed Church is outside of the frame to the left along with the locally

listed pub. This contribute to the overall character and appearance of the location

from which the view is taken.

The view is considered to have a Medium value. The susceptibility of visual


PROPOSED

The change in the view is evident in the removal of the existing Meritage Centre and

its replacement with a new building which similarly terminates the summit of hill. The

new building is screened by existing interposing vegetation and only the ground floor

of the building is visible from the lower viewpoint. The height of the buildings is

appropriate in its context, and no taller than visible surrounding buildings.


The materials are appropriate in their context.

The appearance of the Site when approaching from the east west is improved

Other aspects of the view remain unchanged and there is no effect on the receptors’

appreciation of the wider character and appearance of the view.

The likely effect is Minor Beneficial.

The likely effect is Not Significant.

View 18 – Church End (1)

EXISTING

View 18 is part of a kinetic sequence of views (along with View 15 and 19) for

receptors moving north along Church End in the conservation area.

The eye is drawn by the topography and curve in the road and the Grade II* listed

church tower is a focal point and adds interest in the view as it becomes visible via

movement towards it.

The view is identified as an important view in the Conservation Area Appraisal.

In the middle/foreground, the Meritage Centre is visible as a detracting element, hard

against the frontage of Church End, with incongruous form, materiality and glazing.

Outside of the frame to the receptors’ right is 28-30 Church End which are visible

only obliquely as the receptor passes along Church End.

The view is considered to be a Medium value. The susceptibility of visual receptors

is judged to be Medium. The sensitivity is Moderate.

The receptors are pedestrians and traffic moving along Church End, including

residents.


PROPOSED

The Meritage Centre is removed. This opens up the views behind and allows clearer

and new views of the Grade II listed church within the foil of the existing mature

vegetation.

Part of the Proposed Development is visible (Block 1), although this is limited to the

ground floor, screened by interposing existing mature trees. In winter months, the

two storey element will be visible, sitting comfortably within its context. The new

building (Block1) adopts an appropriate material palette and the pitched form of the

roof will be perceptible, glimpsed through vegetation.

Block 2 is visible obliquely at the same approximate height as the buildings it

replaces. The traditional materials and form of the roof is evident.

The likely effect is Moderate Beneficial.

The likely effect is Significant.

View 19 – Church End 2

EXISTING

The view taken from Church End opposite the existing Meritage Centre. The

receptors will be pedestrians and vehicles passing along Church End in both

directions including residents and users of the surrounding buildings including the

pub and church. It forms part of a kinetic sequence of views with Views 15 and 18.

The view is within a conservation area.

Outside of the frame to the left is the Grade II* listed St Marys Church on the opposite

side of the road and behind the receptor lies the locally listed Church House. These

contribute to the overall appreciation of the wider character.


In this context, the view is dominated by the existing quality Meritage Centre. It is

part screened by the existing landscape within the site, but the detracting qualities

of the Meritage Centre are apparent in terms of its layout, materials, form and

general unkempt appearance). The area of landscape forecourt in front of the

Meritage Centre is visible in the view.

Receptors can glimpse the suburban character of the residential area behind the site

to the east.

The view is considered to be a Low value. The susceptibility of visual receptors is

judged to be Low. The sensitivity is Low.

PROPOSED

The proposed view is dominate by the proposed building. It is set back from the

frontage of the site and retains landscape areas within the site. The permeability of

the site is maintained with the view through the site to the residential area beyond

maintained.

Where the building fronts the site it is a high quality two story building which is

appropriate in its context although the mass is broken down further by the articulation

of the elevation, the rhythm of the fenestration and contrasting use of materials.

The front elevation responds to local influences by adopting a traditional gabled form

which reduces the apparent mass of the building at its upper level, and introduces a

traditional roof form on the site.

The single storey community use element is set back further within the site, and the

contrasting use of materials distinguishes it from the blocks of university

accommodation. The overall character of the site changes from a somewhat

unkempt community use to one of a more mixed character incorporating residential


accommodation and community use. The overall animation of the site is likely to be

enhanced.



View 20 – Church Terrace

EXISTING

View 20 is taken from Church Terrace looking at the rear of the Meritage Centre.

Receptors are likely to be local residents and pupils and staff of St Mary;s and St

John’s CE School.

The view is taken from outside the conservation area, looking into it.

The view is dominate by the poor quality rear of the Meritage Centre. It is a single

storey at its frontage, rising to two storeys plus a roof form. The view has a ‘back of

house’ view and presents a hostile frontage to Church Terrace with no natural

surveillance or overlooking from the site.

The flank elevation is blank and unattractive.

The rear of the building is used as ad hoc bin storage which detracts from the

townscape. There is similar clutter in the form of bollards and unattractive street

furniture.

The mature vegetation of the Grade II* listed St Marys Church is visible beyond.

The view is considered to be a Low value. The susceptibility of visual receptors is

judged to be Low. The sensitivity is Low.

PROPOSED


The existing Meritage Centre is replace with a new high quality building fronting

Church Terrace. It is three storeys tall and its mass is broken down by reading as a

terrace of individual houses and the articulation of the front elevation.

The side flank is enlivened by fenestration and a subtle articulation of the brick work.

The animation of the site is improved generally by the introduction of a more active

frontage overlooking the street.

The Proposed Development creates a stronger frontage to the street and reinforces

its residential character.

The route through the site to Church End is visible, maintaining a permeability to the

site and aiding wayfinding by marking a clear route to Church End.

The mature vegetation of the churchyard beyond is still visible in the view

background.



Effects Once the Proposed Development is Operational

The effects set out above would remain the same at operational stage.

Cumulative Impacts

Demolition and Construction

The cumulative context is not considered to change the assessment and

construction effects on any view, which would remain Negligible Adverse and which

would be direct, short-term, temporary. This effect is not significant.


We do not consider there to be any cumulative views impacts arising from the

cumulative effects of schemes summarised in Chapter 2 nor:

• Prince of Wales Estate Landscape Improvements;

• Daniel Almshouses Landscape Improvements

• Linear Woodland landscape improvements

View Value Susceptibility to change

Sensitivity Magnitude of impact

Likely effect

(Operational)

Likely Effect

(D&C)

Likely Effect (Cumulative)

1 The Burroughs 1

Low/Med Low Low to Moderate

Medium Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

2 The Burroughs 2



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

3 Egerton Gardens 1



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

4 Rear of Dwellings to the north side of Egerton Road


Nil None None None

5 Egerton Gardens 2



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

6 Babington Road Low/Med Low Low to Moderate


Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

7 The Burroughs 2



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

8 Middlesex University Courtyard



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

9 Hendon Library Fire Station Side Street



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

10 The Burroughs (3)



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial


• Former Quinta Club, Mays Lane


are sufficiently distant from the identified views that no cumulative impacts arise due

to the lack of intervisbility.

The remaining cumulative schemes do not have any impact within any of the views

identified for assessment.

11 The Burroughs (4)



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

12 Hendon Library

Building 9 Side Street



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

13 Hendon Library

Building 9 Side Street 2

Low/Med Low Low to moderate


Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

14 Hendon Library

Building 9 Side Street 1



Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

15 Junction of Church end and Church Road


Low Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

16 Prince of Wales Road

Very Low

Medium

Low Medium Minor/Moderate beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor/Moderate beneficial

17 Grey hound Hill Medium Low Low to Moderate

Low Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor Beneficial

18 Church End 1 Medium Medium

Moderate Medium Moderate Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Moderate Beneficial

19 Church End 2 Low Low Low Medium Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor beneficial

20 Church Terrace Low Low Low Medium Minor Beneficial

Minor Adverse

Minor beneficial


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation During Construction

The Construction Management Plan sets out the anticipated programme of works

and the key activities that would be undertaken on the Sites during demolition and

construction necessary to facilitate the Proposed Development. The construction

period is to be phased which will help mitigate any potential effects on heritage

receptors.

The Sites would be enclosed with tall hoarding during Demolition and Construction,

which will provide a visual buffer from the immediate environment. . Equipment and

heavy machinery will also be a common feature of the Site for the anticipated

construction programme.

The demolition and construction phase will also result in increased noise, vibration,

dust and traffic in the surrounding area.

The magnitude of this impact will be mainly experienced within the Site, with much

of the construction activity occluded from view by hoardings.


Mitigation measures proposed to prevent, reduce or offset any significant likely

adverse effects have been identified and developed as part of the pre-application

design process. The primary mitigation measures have become embedded into the

project design, commonly referred to as embedded mitigation. The mitigation arising

from design development and consultation responses is also identified where

appropriate in the assessment.


The likely effects of the Proposed Development include embedded mitigation. As a

result, there is no requirement for additional mitigation and thus likely residual effects

remain the same as the likely effects, unless otherwise stated.


The residual impacts arising from the Proposed Development are summarised in

Table 12.11 above.