conservation area character appraisal – work programme · 2006. 9. 18. · appendix 1...

APPENDIX 1

Conservation Area Character Appraisal – Work Programme Amended 25/5/06

officer

start of draft

compltddraft

sust appraisal

cadap start consult

end consult

st comm inv

final approval

West Wimbledon 06/06/04

Dunmore Rd DW 01/11/04 01/01/05 18/02/05 02/02/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 31/08/05 14/11/05

target 01/03/05 02/02/05 01/06/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/11/05

Lambton Rd PR 01/11/04 01/01/05 18/02/05 02/02/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 05/08/05 14/11/05 target 01/03/05 02/02/05 01/06/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/01/06

Merton Hall Rd PR 01/11/04 01/01/05 18/02/05 02/02/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 05/08/05 14/11/05

target 01/03/05 02/02/05 01/06/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/11/05

Pelham Rd DW 01/11/04 01/01/05 18/02/05 02/02/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 31/08/05 14/11/05 target 01/03/05 02/02/05 01/06/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/11/05

Chase/Quin/Rich PR 01/11/04 01/01/05 10/02/05 02/02/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 05/08/05 14/11/05

target 01/03/05 02/02/05 01/06/05 01/08/05 01/09/05 01/11/25

JI Wilton Cres PR 01/12/04 25/02/05 09/03/05 01/04/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 05/08/05 14/11/05 target 01/03/05 01/04/05 01/04/05 01/08/05 01/10/05 01/09/05 01/11/05

Bertram Cotts DW 01/12/04 15/01/05 18/02/05 01/04/05 12/04/05 24/05/05 31/08/05 14/11/05

target 01/02/05 15/01/05 01/05/05 01/04/05 01/09/05 01/11/05 01/09/05 01/11/05

Kenilworth Ave PR 16/02/05 01/05/05 23/06/05 06/07/05 07/09/05 19/10/05 11/11/05 17/01/06 target 01/01/05 01/04/05 01/04/05 01/06/05 01/09/05 01/11/05 01/12/05 01/01/06

Leopold Rd DW 16/02/05 25/07/05 23/06/05 12/10/05 07/09/05 19/10/05 21/11/05 17/01/06

target 01/01/05 30/06/05 15/07/05 01/10/05 01/09/05 01/11/05 01/12/05 01/01/06

South Park Gdns DW 01/02/05 13/06/05 23/06/05 06/07/05 07/09/05 19/10/05 10/12/05 17/01/06 target 01/02/05 15/06/05 01/07/05 01/06/05 01/09/05 01/11/05 01/12/05 01/01/06

Wan SA 1,2,3,4 LL 01/01/04 10/12/05 10/12/05 12/10/05

18/01/06 12/12/05 30/01/06

target 01/12/05 15/12/05 01/01/06 01/12/05 15/02/06 01/04/06 17/07/06

Wim N. SA 1,2,3 AB 01/01/03 01/05/06 18/01/06 25/05/06 07/07/06 target 01/05/06 15/05/06 01/10/05 01/05/06 15/06/06 10/08/06 04/10/06

JI Merton Park PR 02/03/05 10/12/05 10/12/05 18/01/06 13/05/06 24/06/06 10/07/06

target 01/12/05 15/12/06 01/01/06 01/01/06 01/05/06 15/06/06 01/08/06 04/09/06

Wim Hill Rd PR 14/11/05 01/06/06 05/06/06 13/07/06 31/07/06 11/09/06 target 01/12/05 01/04/06 01/05/06 06/07/06 01/07/06 01/09/06 01/11/06 15/01/07

Wan SA 4,5,6 LL

target 01/01/06 01/04/06 01/05/06 06/07/06 01/08/06 15/09/06 01/11/06 15/01/07

Durham Rd X target 01/07/06 01/09/06 01/10/06 11/10/06 01/11/06 15/12/06 01/01/07 19/02/07

Upper Morden PR 14/11/05

target 01/12/05 01/08/06 01/09/06 11/10/06 01/11/06 15/12/06 01/01/07 19/02/07

Wim N. SA 4,5,6 AB 01/06/05 target 01/10/06 01/11/06 24/01/07 01/12/06 01/02/07 01/03/07 01/05/07

Bathgate Rd AB

target 01/01/07 01/04/07 01/05/07 -/07/07 01/08/07 15/09/07 01/11/07 -/01/08

CABINET 18/9/06 - ITEM 5

1

officer

start of draft

compltddraft

sust appraisal

cadap start consult

end consult

st comm inv

final approval

Drax Ave X

target 01/09/06 01/12/06 01/01/07 24/01/07 01/02/07 01/04/07 01/05/07 -/07/07

Cricket Green LL 03/07/06 target 01/07/06 01/12/06 01/01/07 -/03/07 01/05/07 01/07/07 01/08/07 -/10/07

Broadway LL

target 01/08/07 01/11/07 01/12/07 -/01/08 01/02/08 15/03/08 01/05/08 -/07/08

Dennis Park Cres target -/09/08

Vineyard Hill

target -/10/08

Wim Village target -/10/08

Wim Windmill

target -/01/09

Westcoombe target -/01/09

Wool Rd

target -/02/09

Copse Hill target -/02/09


2

APPENDIX 2

John Innes (Merton Park) Conservation Area Character Assessment

Statement of Community Involvement

Appendix 1 to the Assessment

______________________________________________________________ Summary of Consultations Undertaken A public consultation exercise was undertaken on the draft appraisal during May and June 2006. This consisted of the following: • A copy of the Draft Conservation Area Character Assessment, Sustainability

Appraisal Report and Conservation Area Boundary Assessment report were made available for inspection at the Council offices between 13th May and 24th June (6 weeks).

• A copy of the Draft Character Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal Report and Boundary Assessment report were made available for inspection at Wimbledon Library and Morden Library (the nearest libraries to the site) between 13th May and 24th June (6 weeks).

• A downloadable PDF version of the Draft Character Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal Report and Boundary Assessment report were placed on the Council’s website on 13th May with a deadline for comments of 24th June (6 weeks).

• Letters were sent out between 1st and 13th May to properties within the Conservation Area as defined according to both the existing Conservation Area boundary and according to the proposed boundary revisions (map at Annex 2 shows which properties were consulted). This letter specified a deadline for comments of 24th June (6 weeks). These letters advised where copies of the Draft Character Assessment and associated documents could be viewed, and where copies could be obtained.

• Letters and copies of the Draft Character Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal Report and Boundary Assessment report were sent out in early May to residents associations and amenity societies deemed likely to have an interest in the Conservation Area (see Annex 3) with a deadline of 24th June (6 weeks).

• Letters and copies of the Draft Character Assessment, Sustainability Appraisal Report and Boundary Assessment report were sent out on 8th May to relevant Ward Councillors deemed likely to have an interest in the Conservation Area (see Annex 4) with a deadline of 24th June (6 weeks).

Summary Table of Responses and Proposed Amendments The table below summarises the content of the responses from consultees, the Council’s comments on these and proposed amendments as a result.


3

John Innes (Merton Park) Conservation Area Summary Table of Responses and Proposed Amendments No.

Respondent & Comment Council comment Proposed amendments

1. Mr P Zerdin Comment: Oppose the removal of the Primary School from the CA. – concern that the site might be redeveloped.

Agree to the retention of the school within the CA. The school is important as a social focus for the community, and it provides a strong entrance feature to the CA when approaching from the south. (This response will involve amendment of the Appraisal so as to include all the necessary references to the school).

Retain the school within the boundary of the CA, and make consequential changes to the character appraisal as set out in annex 5 to this document.

2. Mr & Mrs Saitch Comment: Support for the proposals.

Support noted No change.

3. Mr & Mrs Saitch Comment: Include the holly hedges in the protected area as intrinsic to its character.

Holly hedges in the area generally lie within either the Merton Park CA or the Wilton Crescent CA. To give a reasonable level of protection to these hedges will however require article 4 direction powers as well, but seeking such powers is included in the recommended actions for both of these CAs.

No change.

4. Mr & Mrs Saitch Comment: 2a/b Poplar Rd should remain in the CA, as excluding it could open way to damaging development.

Any possible proposals for development at this property would remain subject to UDP policy BE.3 which gives protection to the CA setting and to views into and out of the CA. The property itself is not considered to have any historic or architectural merit, and of itself is not considered to warrant its CA status.

No change.

5. Mr & Mrs Saitch Comment: Primary School should remain within the CA, it contributes to its character from a social and environmental perspective.

See comment in relation to item 1 above.

See proposed amendments in relation to item 1 above.

6. Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: Concerned about the proposed removal of properties from the CA from the point of view of potential relaxation of standards, which regulate changes to properties.

Properties should only be included within a CA if they can be justified in terms of the special character of the area. Their inclusion should not be justified in terms of imposing strict standards in respect of change. However in respect of the School, see comment in relation to item 1 above.

No change, except in relation to item 1 above.

7. Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: Need for speed restriction in all streets in and adjacent to the area.

This issue is not essentially one for the Conservation Area. It has been referred to Street Management officers to consider.

No change.

8. Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: Would like to see restoration of grass verges in

Accept the suggestion and include it in the list of recommended actions.

Add this item into the list of recommended


4

Dorset Rd. actions, see also recommended action in respect of item 37 below.

9. Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: Should extend the CA so as to include the houses on the NE side of Dorset Rd, between the tramway alley to opposite Melrose Rd. Currently the CA boundary runs down the middle of the road. No 28 Dorset Rd is particularly noteworthy.

The issue of extending the CA in this part of Dorset Rd was examined in the Boundary Assessment Report, and this acknowledges that the CA boundary runs down the middle of part of Dorset Rd. No. 28 Dorset Rd in fact already lies inside the CA. The representation does not provide any sufficient justification for reversing the conclusions of CA Boundary Assessment.

No change.

10.

Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: Efforts to preserve/enhance the character of the area may be undermined if badly designed buildings nearby are permitted, (proposed development at no 30 Dorset Rd cited as an example).

Policy BE.3 in the UDP provides some planning protection in respect of development just outside the CA boundaries, in terms of protection of the CA setting and protecting views into and out of the CA.

No change.

11.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: in section 4, page 5 top line, refer to the gate being moved by the John Innes Horticultural Institute to its present position.

This factual correction is accepted. Amend section 4 accordingly.

12.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: page 6, 3rd para, 3rd line, should read “It was built in the 1820s”

This factual correction is accepted. Amend page 6 accordingly.

13.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: page 6, 8th para, , amend to refer to “Tooting Loop” rather than “Tooting to Streatham Line”

This factual correction is accepted. Amend page 6 accordingly.

14.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: page 6 final para, 1st line should read “consisted of large and small Victorian villas”

The factual correction is accepted, though reference to small Victorian cottages is preferred to small Victorian villas.

Amend to refer to “small Victorian cottages”.

15.

Mr & Mrs Barrett Comment: a most helpful and researched piece of work.

Comment noted. No change.

16.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: Add reference to the view across the Glebe Field from the western gate in Erridge Rd, in winter this gives a view of the church, reflecting older, longer views of the church from the south, across open fields.

Agree to the proposed amendment.

See proposed amendment for item 22 below.

17 Mr H Child (note 1) Comment noted. No change.


5

. Comment: A Planning Inspector has recently referred to views into the Glebe Fields as “a rare oasis of tranquillity in an otherwise busy urban environment”.

18.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: It is difficult to argue that Stratton Close is worthy of retention within the CA, but the trees that form a back drop to one corner of the Glebe Field should be protected, eg use of TPO.

Comment on Stratton Close is noted. Investigation will be undertaken to the possible need for trees within the Stratton Close gardens to be protected by TPOs, on the basis that they would lose protection afforded by their CA status.

No change is needed to the appraisal document.

19.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: Welcome the suggested inclusion of Manor Gardens in the CA.


20.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: page 21, start section 20 with the words “Larger green spaces make a significant contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.”


Amend page 21 accordingly.

21.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: page 24, TPO 152 is stated to cover various trees around the boundary of the site, a TPO also covers the trees that run across the middle of part of the Glebe Field (between Erridge Rd and the Church/ vicarage).


Amend section 22 (TPO 152) to refer to trees “within the Glebe Field”.

22.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: insert, on page 26, under sub heading on Views, after 1st para, “Probably the finest view is from the more westerly of the two Glebe Fields Gates in Erridge Rd, across the Glebe Field towards the Church and Vicarage”.


Amend page 26, to include the wording proposed by Mr Child.

23.

Mr H Child (note 1) Comment: Pleased to see the recommended action to seek appropriate Article 4 Direction powers to give protection to holly hedges.


24.

Mr N Clarke Comment: The decision to include Manor Gardens in the CA appears to have been pre-judged, in that the draft assessment is written on the basis of its inclusion, and that a blue conservation area street name sign has been erected at the end of that road.

The draft boundary assessment and the draft character appraisal were written in parallel, each informing the other. The fact that a blue CA street name sign has been erected at the end of the road is not a sign of any pre-judgement. This fact played no part in the recommended boundary alteration. It is noted that Mr Clark does not specifically object to the inclusion

No change.


6

of this area in the CA. 25.

Mr N Clarke Comment: It is disingenuous of the Council to have permitted changes to be made to Merton Park school (windows and extension), which are then used as argument for taking the school out of the CA. What else might be done to the school if it is taken out of the CA, and thereby not be subject to Article 4 Direction control.

There was no calculation to secure de-designation of the school site, when the alterations to the school building were undertaken. However see comment in relation to item 1 above.


26.

Mr N Clarke Comment: The changes made to the School, (see comment above), do not appear to be too damaging, and do not warrant excluding the school from the CA. It is a major landmark in the local community.



27.

Mr N Clarke Comment: The proposed article 4 directions (especially those for small scale alterations) are rather draconian in scope. They appear to try to preserve rather than to conserve. Individualisation and personalising properties is normal. Further consultation with people is needed on this. Have these proposals been considered by elected representatives.

It is true that the suggested Article 4 Direction would be quite far reaching, but it is intended that they be tailored only to control changes which potentially (on a cumulative basis) might adversely affect the character/appearance of the CA. They specifically do not try to preserve, and renewal of building fabric will occur, but only under planning control, in order to ensure that such changes are done in a way sympathetic to the character of the CA.

No change.

28.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: welcome the opportunity to re-appraise the CA and to consider proposals for enhancement.

Comment noted No change.

29.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Proposed CA boundary changes are generally supported, especially the inclusion of Manor Gardens.

Comment noted. No change

30.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: The boundary change deleting the Merton Park School is not supported. The school is important to the vitality and sustainability of the area. It is part of the social fabric of the area. Would not wish to see the use changed to residential. The school is essentially pleasing architecturally, and the




7

changes that have occurred are minor.

31.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Generally support the opportunities and recommended actions.

Comment noted No change

32.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Removal of redundant crossovers should not be limited to those in Mostyn Rd. (recommended actions)


Amend section 29 (Opportunities and Recommended Action) accordingly.

33.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Suggested re-phrasing of action in respect of article 4 for holly hedges, controls should be sought “where they form part of the character of that street”, and the planting of new holly hedges should be encouraged when opportunities present themselves.

This comment makes a more specific reference to the intended extent of the suggested article 4 coverage. The suggestion for new holly planting is also supported. Agree to the proposed amendment.

Amend section 29 (Opportunities and Recommended Action) accordingly.

34.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: The action to prepare a brief for Wykeham Lodge has been overtaken by events with a planning application now submitted for the site. We need to rely on the Design and Conservation Team to give detailed scrutiny to the application.

Whilst it is quite possible that a brief for the site may not be required, it is considered premature at this stage to delete reference to this, as a possible required action. Currently (June 2006) no planning permission has been granted in respect of the application, neither has work started on site. Even if these things had happened, this would only affect part of the Wykeham Lodge site.

No change.

35.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Disagree with the suggestion for the redevelopment of the car park site in Church Path. Retaining the car park is essential to the functioning of the activities in the hall, and to Church Path. Holly hedge planting has been undertaken to delineate a soft boundary to the road.


Delete the reference to the recommended action - to prepare a design brief for the car park site, in section 29.

36.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Views into the Glebe Field from Church Path could be improved by the removal of outbuildings at the rear of the car park.


Add a new recommended action to section 29, to seek improvements to the views of the Glebe Field if possible through the removal of the outbuildings.

37.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: Grass verges

Agree to the proposed amendment, see also response to

Add new recommended


8

should be restored where possible, especially along Dorset Rd. Here the footways are broad, and the streetscape would be softened and enhanced.

comment 8 above. action to section 29, noting that this is not limited to Dorset Rd.

38.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: The blue CA street name signs (with the holly motif) should be used where new signs are required.


Add new recommended action to section 29.

39.

Respondent, see note 2 Comment: The view of the Glebe Fields from the gate in Erridge Rd should be added to the list of noteworthy medium distance views in para 24. A Planning Inspector has noted that the fields are “a rare oasis of tranquillity in an otherwise busy urban environment”, this view offers one of the best views into them.

See response to comment 22 above.

See recommended change referred to against comment 22 above.

40.

Mr Ian Stopher Comment: Support for the removal of 2a/b Poplar Rd from the CA.

Comment noted No change.

Note 1 – Mr Child is the Representative of the John Innes (Merton Park) CA on the Conservation And Design Advisory Panel. Note 2 – Joint representation from Merton Park Ward Independent Residents (Ward Councillors), Merton Park Ward Residents Assn. And the John Innes Society.


9

ANNEX 2: Map showing properties consulted


10

ANNEX 3: List of relevant organisations consulted 1. John Innes Society ANNEX 4: List of Councillors Consulted Councillors representing Merton Park Ward ANNEX 5: Proposed changes to the text of the Character Appraisal, consequent upon the retention of the Merton Park School within the Conservation Area boundary are indicated in the revised Draft Character Appraisal (July 2006).


11


12

APPENDIX 3

1

Amendments in the light of public consultations on this document (see pages 4 to 10, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 40 and 47) are shown as follows: Deleted text is shown struck through Added text is shown in italics and underlined DRAFT CHARACTER APPRAISAL JOHN INNES (MERTON PARK) CONSERVATION AREA. CONTENTS page 1. General Introduction 2 2. Description of Extent of CA 3 3. Designation History 4 4. History of Development 4 5. Land Uses 9 6. Archaeology 9 7. Listed Building, Building Contribution 9 8. Architects 11 9. Architecture & Group Value 12 10. Building Materials 13 11. Building Alterations 14 12. Street Layout 16 13. Building Plots 17 14. Building Height 17 15. Building Form 17 16. Building Line 18 17. Roof Form 19 18. Rhythm and Symmetry of Buildings 20 19. Gardens and Spaces between and around Buildings 20 20. Larger Green Spaces 21 21. Streets 23 22. Trees/landscape 24 23. Ecology 26 24. Views 27 25. Landmarks/legibility 28 26. Article 4 Directions 28 27. Wykeham Lodge 29 28. Positive/Negative Features 30 29. Opportunities/recommended action 32 Appendix 1 Building Information Appendix 2 Building Alterations Appendix 3 Street Design Appendix 4 Plans Appendix 5 Photos


13

2

1. General Introduction Conservation Areas are designated by the Council and are defined as “areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve of enhance” (section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990). National planning guidance is provided by Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment). Regional planning policy is provided by the London Plan (Feb 2004), which contains relevant policies on built heritage, heritage conservation and historic conservation-led regeneration (policies 4B.10, 11 and 12). Local planning policy is contained in the Merton Unitary Development Plan (Oct 2003), which contains relevant strategic and detailed policies (policies ST.18, and BE.1, 2 and 3). Merton’s Local Development Framework (LDF) will include a Core Strategy, which will be a Development Plan Document (DPD). This will set out how the Council intends to deliver its strategic intentions. It is intended that the Core Strategy will commit the Council to the preparation of both a Character Appraisal and a Management Plan for each of the designated Conservation Areas in the Borough. The Core Strategy will also indicate how a broad strategy for conservation is to be integrated with other policies. It is also intended to prepare a Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to cover all the Borough’s Conservation Areas in general. It will expand on, and give more specific guidance on, for example, development control matters, and conservation related policies in the Core Strategy, and where necessary to expand on conservation related policies in any other DPD. This and other Conservation Area Character Appraisals will be used to support the Conservation Area SPD, as will Management Plans which are also to be prepared for each Conservation Area. The full name of the Conservation Area which is the subject of this character appraisal is the John Innes (Merton Park) Conservation Area, as distinct from the adjoining John Innes (Wilton Crescent) Conservation Area, which lies to the north of Kingston Rd. Hereafter in this document it is referred to as the Merton Park Conservation Area, or the Conservation Area. The Merton Park Conservation Area falls into 4 distinct areas (see plan DLU/2180 a/b). These are outlined below, the special character of each of these areas derives from: 1. The remaining areas of the pre suburban village of Merton. This area focuses on the eastern part of Church Path, the church and churchyard and the Glebe Field. The characteristics of the area may be summarised as:


14

3

• The very informal and irregular street layout, and in particular the way in which Church Path changes from a wide space with a central planted island, to a narrow space constricted by high walls.

• The plot layout especially at 15 – 25 Church Path • The surviving buildings and structures from this period, such as the church, the

vicarage the cottages at 15 – 25 Church Path and the walls surrounding the playing field.

• The surviving open spaces, such as the Glebe Field, the churchyard and the playing field.

• The quality of street design and street materials. 2. The “Garden Suburb” This area comprises the majority of the Conservation Area. The characteristics of the area may be summarised as: • The regular grid of streets conforming to the layout of a planned settlement • The mix of suburban houses which range in size from large detached mansions

and villas, to small terraced cottages • The architectural relationship between buildings, with the frequent and

recognisable appearance of the works of specific architects • The architectural quality of the buildings, including repeated use of certain

architectural details and use of a specified palette of very high quality materials • The spaciousness in the layout of buildings, and the generous and varied gaps

between one building and its neighbours • The generous planting in gardens and in the streets, including holly hedges and

many medium sized and large trees in the street and in private gardens • The Victorian layout, planting, landscape and structures used in the John Innes

Park • The quality of street design and street materials. 3. The Overlay of “Garden Suburb” on the Village Layout This area comprises the Watery Lane area. The characteristics of the area are a combination of the elements described above, and are briefly summarised as • The very informal and irregular street layout associated with the old village of

Merton • The later development of “garden suburb” buildings whose characteristics are

described above

4. The Manor Gardens Area The characteristics of the area may be summarised as: • The regularity and rhythm in the buildings, building and street layouts and

building plots • The architectural qualities of the individual buildings, including detailing and

their coherence as a group • The very high quality street trees • The quality of street design and street materials. 2. Description of extent of CA The Conservation Area which is subject of this Character Appraisal is 32.0 31.63 hectares in extent. It is situated approximately 1 kilometre to the south of Wimbledon Town Centre, and approximately 1.2 kilometres to the north-west of Morden Town Centre.


15

4

To the north-west, on the opposite side of Kingston Rd, lies the John Innes (Wilton Crescent) Conservation Area, and to the west lies the Merton Hall Rd Conservation Area. To the south and south east lie the extensive residential areas of Poplar Rd, Aylward Rd and Kenley Rd. To the north-east and east there is the tram line, and a tapering wedge of open space, beyond which is the residential area of Merton Park (East), (see plan DLU/2185). The area is almost entirely flat, and is at an altitude of approx 15 metres above sea level, with a height difference of barely over 1 metre between the lowest part (the west) and the highest part (the east). It is located within in a low lying belt of land which runs east to west between the R Wandle and the Beverley Brook, with the higher land of Wimbledon Hill to the north west, and Cannon Hill to the south west. The Conservation Area includes the following properties (see plan DLU/2182 a/b). • 148 – 200 (evens) Kingston Rd • 1 – 45 (odds) Dorset Rd • 2 – 28 (evens) Dorset Rd • all properties in Langley Rd • all properties in Sheridan Rd • all properties in Melrose Rd • all properties in Church Lane • All properties in Church Path • Merton Park Primary School, Erridge Rd • 1 – 39 (odds) Mostyn Rd • 2 – 60, (evens) and 62a Mostyn Rd • all properties in Watery Lane • all properties in Manor Gardens 3. Designation History The John Innes (Merton Park) Conservation Area was designated by the Council in 1968. In November 1990 the Conservation Area was extended to include the Recreation Ground adjacent to Cannon Hill Lane and Manor Rd. No further boundary changes were made to the Conservation Area between that date and the start of work on the Character Appraisal for the Conservation Area. The boundary assessment which has been carried out as part of the Character Assessment work in 2005, has however identified a number of proposed further boundary alterations, these are listed below, and this Draft Character Assessment has been prepared on the basis of these further boundary changes. • The addition of all properties in Manor Gardens. • The deletion of 62 Mostyn Rd • The deletion of all properties in Stratton Close • The deletion of the Merton Park Primary School, Erridge Rd • The deletion of 2a/2b Poplar Rd 4. History of Development It is understood that the estate of Merton was in existence at least from the late Saxon period, (and possibly earlier). Rocque’s map of 1741-45 (see 1745 plan attached) shows the layout of the mediaeval village of Merton, largely strung out along the length of the present day Kingston Rd. Most development appears to be on


16

5

the south side of the road, and in addition to Kingston Rd, we can see (from east to west) the present day Church Lane, Watery Lane/the Rush, Blakesley Walk (known as Blind Lane), and Cannon Hill Lane. Running east – west we can also see the present day Church Path and Manor Rd, which together connect Church Lane and Cannon Hill Lane. A further dog leg path or road is also shown to the south of Church Path, running through what is today the John Innes Park and (possibly) no. 52 Mostyn Rd. The parish Church (still existing) is clearly shown on the map, together with a defined curtilage which is presumably the churchyard. The church was founded in around 1115, by Gilbert the Norman, who later founded Merton Priory, however Domesday (1086) also refers to a church in Merton. A Saxon timber church probably stood on this site. Various alterations to the church building occurred between 1115 and 1400. A fine timber porch was added in the 15th century. However after this little changed until 1856, when a new south aisle was added (architect F Digweed), followed by a new north aisle in 1866 (architect B Ferrey). Restoration work on the church was also carried out by the architects Quartermain – the western arch, (in 1897), and Brocklesby (in 1924), and also his dormer windows added in 1929 . Both men are referred to in connection with the “garden suburb” phase, below. The dormer windows on the south facing roof slope are highly characteristic of the work of Brocklesby. Church House (for a time known as Merton Place) is also seen on Rocque’s map, to the north of the Church, on the opposite side of Church Path. It is surrounded by the part 16th part 17th century curtilage wall, which is shown on the map, and which survives today. These extensive buildings are believed to have been part Elizabethan and part Georgian. It was an “E” shaped building whose open side faced south towards the church. A fine early 18th century wrought iron gate situated between brick piers, each topped by stone vases, made an imposing entrance to the grounds from Church Path. The gate was moved by the John Innes Horticultural Institute Society to its present position. The piers are evident today (one reconstructed), but the vases are not. Within the grounds to the west there was a large barn. Between 1820 and 1845 the property was used as a workhouse, and later as a school. Part of Church House was demolished in 1911, and the remainder in 1923. The line curtilage wall appears to enclose cultivated gardens at the western end. Further cottages and buildings are seen on the map immediately to the west of here, on both sides of Church Path. Manor Farm together with what appear to be cultivated gardens, are seen on the south side of Watery Lane, where the present day Rutlish School stands. There are also some further buildings and gardens shown on the opposite (northern) side of Watery Lane. Buildings can be seen both around and within the “island” at the Rush (all these are outside the Conservation Area), but the gardens of the buildings on the eastern side of the Rush (at one time known as “Verandah Villa”) extend eastwards into the western part of the Conservation Area. On Kingston Rd we see buildings strung out on the south side of the road, with extensive gardens, in some cases stretching down as far as the (surviving) wall around Church House. These properties mainly lie to the east of the junction of Church Lane, and amongst these is Dorset Hall which survives today. This was built


17

6

by a yeoman farmer, and it probably originates just before 1709, but was much enlarged, with an extension on the east side, probably in 1829/30. An ordnance survey map of 1865 indicates changes that occurred since 1741, (see 1865 plan attached). This map shows the area immediately before suburban development occurred. The configuration of roads and paths which featured in Rocque’s map also appear on this one. The Church and churchyard can be seen on the map and immediately to the west we now see the Vicarage building (today 3/5 Church Path), which dates from 1818 with 19th century alterations. Immediately to the west of Dorset Hall we can see Dorset Lodge, built in 1834, but which was demolished in the post-war period. The railway between Wimbledon and West Croydon is shown on the 1865 map, it was built in 1855, built jointly by the London Brighton and South Coast Railway and the London and South Western Railway. This railway now forms part of the eastern boundary of the Conservation Area. The original Merton Park railway station (now a tramstop) was initially called “Lower Merton” and it was opened in 1868. The map also shows a complex of buildings at “Manor Farm” in Watery Lane, and also cottages which may survive today at nos. 10/12 Watery Lane and 38 – 46 Watery Lane, though rebuilt by the architect Quartermain subsequent to 1865. The boundaries of the present day recreation ground at the western end of the Conservation Area, are also shown. Number 27 Church Path (Merton Cottage) and a building on the site of what is now known as 23 Mostyn Rd (Gardeners Cottage) are also shown, linked to Watery Lane by a sinuous road which is now within John Innes Park. Merton Cottage is dated to around 1770, with later additions, including Victorian “re-fronting”. The front door was moved one bay to the right in 1986. On the south side of Church Path we see a terrace of cottages (which survives today and is now numbered 15 – 25 Church Path). Of these number 25 is thought to date from around 1700, while the remainder are probably from the period 1810 – 1820. Further east, on the north side of Church Path, the large complex of buildings at Church House remains, and also what appears to be a cultivated garden within the area enclosed by the surviving wall which surrounds what is today the playing field. The present wide “street” configuration at the eastern end of Church Path is also evident on this map. A building is shown closing off the eastern end of this wide section of Church Path, this is labelled “National Schools”. It was built in the 1820s 1830, but was demolished to make way for the construction of Melrose Rd. A new larger school was built in 1870 (with later additions probably involving Quartermain), immediately to the south, fronting Church Lane. The architects of this school building were Aldridge and Willis of Croydon. Most of this building survives as flats today. Other buildings (since demolished) are seen on the site of 146/148 Kingston Rd (next to the level crossing). However three houses, one detached and a pair of semi detached, at 176 – 180 Kingston Rd are also shown, all of which survive today. 176/178 are early 19th century and no 180 is dated on the building to 1797. In 1867 the successful businessman John Innes bought land at “Lower Merton”, with the intention of creating what today may be called a “garden suburb”. The initial land


18

7

purchase extended to the west of the railway, and to the south of Kingston Rd. The concept involved attractive, picturesque, artistic and varied buildings set among grass, trees and shrubs. Innes lived in the Manor House in Watery Lane, which is identified as Manor Farm on the 1865 map. Over a period of 30 years the house was gradually altered from a small farm to a substantial residence. Some alterations were designed by Quartermain. The main approach to this house was from Mostyn Rd, through what is today the John Innes Park. The entrance on Mostyn Rd being at the Lodge (designed by Quartermain), which survives today. Three new straight roads were laid out by Innes (Dorset Rd, Mostyn Rd and Sheridan Rd) in 1870 and 1871, in anticipation of development. Part of Sheridan Rd followed the line of an older footpath which is shown on the 1865 map, part of which survives today to cross the railway line/tramline to the east of Dorset Rd. Melrose Rd and the eastern part of Langley Rd were later constructed. Most of these new roads included avenues of trees, (plane trees in Sheridan and Dorset Roads and chestnuts in Mostyn Rd). Holly hedges were used to define each plot. Development was however slow to start as a result of poor transport connections to London, despite the opening of Merton Park station in 1868 (on the old Tooting loop line – Streatham line), and the later platform, added for the Croydon line in 1870. The first phase of development (1870 – 76), consisted of large Victorian Villas and small Victorian cottages, of fairly conventional design. The architect at this time was thought to be RB Marsh, who worked for Innes between 1870 and 1873, and Henry Goodall Quartermain, who worked for him from 1873, but who seems likely to have contributed work before then. However the “garden suburb” was conceived as a socially mixed development, with small cottages (either terraced or semi detached) included in various parts of the estate. Henry Goodall Quartermain worked for Innes as his architect until his death in 1904. Quartermain is noted for use of a domestic revival or neo vernacular style. He was responsible from most new building in the Estate from the late 1870s until his death. His influence marks the 2nd phase of the development of the Estate. The development of Merton Park also involved Thomas Newell, and (John) Sydney Brocklesby, the latter brought in by Innes shortly before Quartermain’s death in 1904. Brocklesby is responsible for the 3rd and final phase of the Estate development. Appendix 1 indicates surviving buildings ascribed to these architects. This includes situations where the architect is known, and situations where the age and style of the building is indicative of a specific architect. Merton Park is arguably the first of the garden suburbs, (a claim which may be disputed with Bedford Park in Chiswick, where building began in 1875). In Merton Park the first garden suburb development took place in the 1870s. During this decade the first houses are built, beginning at the northern end of Mostyn Rd (mainly on the eastern side), and on Kingston Rd (immediately to the west of the Mostyn Rd junction). In addition the houses on the eastern side of Church Lane (between Langley Rd and Sheridan Rd) are built, also houses on the western side of Dorset Rd (between Sheridan Rd and Langley Rd). The new school building in Church Lane is also built at this time, the architects were Aldridge and Willis. An


19

8

extension dated 1901 is the work of Quartermain. The 1879 map (see 1879 map attached) indicates the stage of development at this time. By the end of the 1890s, development along the south side of Kingston Rd is almost complete, the first houses had been built on the eastern side of Dorset Rd (6 – 12), in Melrose Rd (1 – 7), in Sheridan Rd (1, 3, 7, 9, 11), Langley Rd (16), Mostyn Rd (mainly to the north of Sheridan Rd but also including 15, 21a, 23, and 32 – 52), and in Watery Lane (8 – 14 and 38 - 46). Finally at this time 3 of the 4 terraces of cottages at the south end of Church Lane (31 – 36, 37 – 46, and 56 – 61), were built. In the pre 1st World War period (1900 – 1914), most of the new development took place at the eastern and western ends of the Conservation Area. In Watery Lane (9 – 17, 2 – 6, 16 – 36), in Manor Gardens (all properties), in Melrose Rd (2 – 30, 9 – 15, and 21 – 29), in Dorset Rd (18 – 26, and 35 – 45a), in Church Lane (11 – 23 and the terrace of cottages at 47 – 55), and in Sheridan Rd (2 and 4). In around 1910 a new village school was built fronting onto Erridge Rd. This school followed the general architectural design of other Surrey County Council school buildings of that period (eg the Morden Primary School in London Rd). During this period the architect JS Brocklesby built houses in the area (from around 1904 until the 1920s). His work is characteristic of the “Arts and Crafts” style. These are identified in appendix 1. Within the central part of the Conservation Area only a few isolated new houses were built in this period, (17 Sheridan Rd, 28/30 Church Path, 77 and 78 Church Lane, together with 17, 54, 54a, 62a, 27 and 29 Mostyn Rd). By the end of the 1st World War there were still considerable areas of land available for infill development, and many of these were in-filled with houses during the Inter-war period. This infill included areas in the middle and southern parts of Mostyn Rd, the western ends of Church Path, Sheridan Rd and Langley Rd, together with more isolated houses at 28 Dorset Rd, 32/34 and 17 Melrose Rd, Church House and no. 10 Church Path, 70/71 and 76 Church Lane, and 6 – 12 and 28 – 32 Sheridan Rd. In 1935 a Norman archway was re-erected (probably by JS Brocklesby) close to the west door of the Parish Church. The archway which is thought to date from c.1175, was originally part of the fabric of the nearby Merton Priory. It is suggested that it was the entrance to the Guest House (Hospitium) of the Priory. On the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century, it was incorporated into a house, while much of the rest of the Priory was demolished. That house eventually being demolished in 1914, the stones of the archway were salvaged and later re-erected on their present site. The Ordnance Survey Map of the early 1930s (plan DLU/2200) shows the greater part of development in the area completed. However during the post World War 2 period, a large number of smaller infill developments have occurred, including a few which have involved the demolition of previously existing houses and other significant buildings. The main developments include: • The loss of the church hall in Church Path, and its replacement in the 1960s with

a modern building on a site slightly further to the east. • The removal in 1984 of some of the buildings in the eastern part of the old school

site in Church Lane, and the conversion of the residual school buildings (on the Church Lane frontage) to create flats, and also the construction of new flats on the remainder of the old school site, including the Melrose rd frontage.


20

9

• The development of several new houses on both sides of Church Path in the vicinity of the new church hall in the 1970s and 80s.

• The development in the 1990s of new houses and flats at the junction of Dorset Rd and Kingston Rd, including the restoration of the original house at 148 Kingston Rd (formerly 2 Dorset Rd).

• The development in 1959 of new flats and maisonettes to the south of Dorset Hall, fronting on to Langley Rd (Wycombe Lodge).

• The development of flats (in 1984) and a doctor’s surgery (in 1963 with later additions) at 2 and 2a Church Lane, involving the retention of one original building (originally 162 Kingston Rd), and the demolition of 164 Kingston Rd.

• The construction of several new houses at the western end of Langley Rd in the 1950s and 60s.

• The Manor House in Watery Lane (once the home of John Innes, and with a blue plaque to that effect) was converted for use as the Rutlish School in 1957, and a large new school building in the grounds was built at this time.

5. Land Uses The predominant land use within the Conservation Area is residential. However the area also includes some non-residential uses, the most notable being: • The Church, grave yard and Church Hall in Church Path • The Rutlish secondary school in Watery Lane • The Erridge Rd Primary School • Playing fields and open spaces in Church Lane, Manor Rd/Cannon Hill Lane, and

the Glebe Field to the west of the churchyard • The John Innes public park in Mostyn Rd • The doctor’s surgery at 2 Church Lane • Wimbledon House School at 1b/1c Dorset Rd 6. Archaeology The great majority of the Conservation Area lies within an Archaeological Priority Zone (APZ). The APZ is based on the mediaeval village settlement of Merton. This village was polyfocal in character, with no strong village centre. The irregular village layout is evident from Rocque’s map (see 1745 map). The estate of Merton originated in the later Saxon period, and it was first referred to in a document of 949 AD. It was again referred to in the Domesday survey. The only parts of the Conservation Area which lie outside the APZ are at: • Mostyn Rd (from nos. 58 and 27 southwards) • The recreation ground at Cannon Hill Lane/Manor Rd • Most of the houses on the eastern side of Church Lane and in Dorset Rd (in both

cases to the south of Langley Rd) – here the APZ boundary does not conform to modern property boundaries

• Properties in Melrose Rd and in the eastern part of Sheridan Rd • The Erridge Rd primary School 7. Listed Buildings – Buildings Contribution The contribution made by each building to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is indicated in appendix 1, as is any listed building status.


21

10

There are Statutorily Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area at: • The War Memorial at Church Lane/Church Path (grade II) • The Church of St Mary, Church Path (grade II*) • The freestanding archway to the NW of the Church of St Mary (grade II) • The garden wall enclosing 4 sides of the playing field in Church Lane/Church

Path, including an iron gate to Church Path, (grade II) • Dorset Hall, Kingston Rd, (grade II) • Telephone kiosk in footway outside 182 Kingston Rd, (grade II) • “Flint Barn”, 35 Mostyn Rd, (grade II) • the Manor House (part of John Innes School), Watery Lane, (grade II) There are 139 Locally Listed buildings within the Conservation Area. These are all considered to contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. They are: • Church Lane: 2a (old building - formerly 162 Kingston Rd), 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 30

(Richard Thornton House), Church House, 31 – 36 (consec), 37 – 46 (consec), 47 – 55 (consec), and 56 – 61 (consec).

• Church Path: 3/5 (the vicarage), 15 – 23 (odds), 25, 28 and 30. • Dorset Rd: 1, 1b, 1c (Wimbledon House School), 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20,

22, 24, 35 and 37. • Kingston Rd: 148 (formerly 2 Dorset Rd), 180, 192, 194, 196, 198 and 200. • Langley Rd: 16. • Melrose Rd: 1 – 7 (odds), 1a (the Coach House), 2, 4 – 20 (evens), 22, 24, 26,

28 and 30. • Mostyn Rd: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 17, lodge at 21a, 27, 29, 32 – 38 (evens), 54,

54a, Bandstand at John Innes Park, 23 (Gardener’s Cottage at John Innes Park), and Public conveniences at John Innes Park.

• Sheridan Rd: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 17a, 19, 36, 38 and 40. • Watery Lane: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 (Steep Roof), 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 and

walls on east and south sides of Rutlish School grounds. In addition to the above, the following buildings (whilst not being listed of locally listed) are considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area: • Church Lane: 1a, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, • Church Path: 10, 24, 26, 27 (Merton Cottage), Montrose, Dorquain, Stoneleigh,

Mostyn Cottage, and Red Roof. • Dorset Rd: 2, 2a, 2b, 4, 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 39, 41, and 43. • Erridge Rd: Merton Park Primary School. • Kingston Rd: 146, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, building in rear garden of

180, 182, 184, 186, 188, and 190. • Langley Rd: 2, 4, 6, 8, garage at no. 15, • Manor Gardens: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. • Melrose Rd: Old School Close (nos. 1 – 33), 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32,

and 34. • Mostyn Rd: Coach House (adjacent no. 1), 4, 4a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20,

22, 24, 26, 28, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 58, 60, 62a and 62b. • Sheridan Rd: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17, 17b, 30, 32, and 42. • Watery Lane: 2, 4, 6, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, The following buildings make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area:


22

11

• Church Lane: 2a (new building), 15, 16, 17, 18, 79, 85. • Church Path: 16, 18, 20, 22, Jalna and Dale Cottage. • Dorset Rd: 9, 9a, 11, 11a, 16, 26, 45, and 45a. • Kingston Rd: 184a. • Langley Rd: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17. • Manor Gardens: none • Melrose Rd: 17. • Mostyn Rd: Timber pavilion in John Innes Park, 2b, 21, 30, 56, • Sheridan Rd: Ranmore, Oxton, Orchard House (nos, 1, 2, 3, 4), 7a, 13, 15, 16,

18, 20, 28, 34, and 34a • Watery Lane: 48. The following buildings make a negative contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area: • Church Lane: 1, and 2. • Church Path: 7, 9, 11, Roseville, Shrub Cottage, and Church Hall. • Dorset Rd: 1a, and 17. • Kingston Rd: none • Langley Rd: 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26, and Wykeham Lodge (1 – 31), • Manor Gardens: none • Melrose Rd: none • Mostyn Rd: 1a, 37 and 39. • Sheridan Rd: 5, 5a, and 11a. • Watery Lane: 5, 7, 14a, 14b and Rutlish New School building. 8. Architects The architects involved with many of the buildings from the garden suburb phase in the Conservation Area are known, and the design and detailing of several other buildings in the area are indicative of these same known architects who worked locally. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries only a limited number of architects were employed by the Merton Park Estate Company, and this limit, manifested in many common building designs and details, does much to give a cohesive architectural character to the area, which in turn is a major factor in its special character. Appendix 1 indicates the names of architects, where known, and also suggests probable architects for other buildings on the basis of their perceived architectural similarities. Photographs included in this Appraisal show detailing and styles typical of these specified architects. HG Quartermain • Period of activity – early 1870s, to 1904 • Characteristic style – Domestic revival (neo-vernacular), or picturesque style.

Buildings ranged from large mansions to small cottages. • Characteristic design and detailing – a wide range of materials but generally tiled

roofs, complex roof forms, Dutch gables, hanging tiles (often ornately cut tiles), half timbering with render infill panels, moulded brick decoration, small paned sliding sash windows or casements, Japanese style timber balconies, dormers, oriel windows, tall chimneys, and small terracotta panels sometimes used in chequerboard format.

JS Brocklesby


23

12

• Period of activity – 1900s to 1920s • Characteristic style – arts and crafts style. Buildings ranged from large mansions

to small cottages. • Characteristic detailing – irregular or asymmetrical elevations, low pitch, or

occasionally very steeply pitched roofs, small cottage windows, inglenooks, white roughcast or occasionally flint, pantiles, and leaded and coloured glass.

• Brocklesby lived for a while in several of the houses that he designed, no. 17 Watery Lane (“Steeproof”) being specifically designed for his family.

T Newell • Period of activity – 1900 – 1904 • Characteristic style and detailing - similar to Quartermain’s domestic revival style. RB Marsh • Period of activity – 1870 – 73 • Characteristic style – Large Victorian villas, usually semi detached, with Victorian

gothic influences. • Characteristic detailing - use of yellow stock bricks, fairly steep, often slate roofs,

gables, rear projecting wings. Leo Sylvester Sullivan • Period of activity – around 1912 • Characteristic style and detailing – similar to Brocklesby’s Arts and Crafts,

generally quite severe and angular character. Victor Farrier • Period of activity – 1950s • Characteristic style – His buildings comprise pairs of symmetrical “semi-

detached” blocks each with 4 maisonettes, each with part mansard style roofs and hipped main roofs.

9. Architecture and Group Value A large number of the buildings in the Conservation Area are architectural “one offs”. Others share strong design relationships with their neighbours, and as a result have a group architectural value, however such groups of buildings tend to be quite small, containing only from 3 to about 12 houses. These cases (where more than 2 houses are built to the same or strongly similar design) are identified on plan DLU/2181 a/b, and addresses are set out below. This homogeneity in the architectural designs of the buildings, and the similarities of certain of the designs to others in the Conservation Area is a significant factor which contributes to its special character. There are also notable similarities of design and detail between some of the buildings within this Conservation Area and some buildings within the John Innes (Wilton Crescent) Conservation Area. Building Type A 31 – 36 (consec) and 56 – 61 (consec) Church Lane). Building Type B 37 – 46 (consec) Church Lane). Building Type C 47 – 55 (consec) Church Lane). Building Type D 3 – 10 (consec) Church Lane).


24

13

Building Type E 15 – 23 (odds) Church Path). Building Type F 21 – 31 (odds) Dorset Rd). Building Type G 4 – 20 (evens) Melrose Rd). Building Type H 1 – 7 (odds) Melrose Rd). Building Type I 6 – 12 (evens) Sheridan Rd). Building Type J 19, 38 and 40 Sheridan Rd). Building Type K 2 – 8 (evens) Langley Rd). Building Type L 166 – 174 (evens) Kingston Rd). Building Type M 194 - 200 (evens) Kingston Rd). Building Type N 32 – 38 (evens) Mostyn Rd). Building Type O 40 – 50 (evens) Mostyn Rd). Building Type P 16 – 30 (evens) Mostyn Rd). Building Type Q 2 – 16 (evens), 1 – 13 (odds), 15 – 27 (odds) Manor Gardens). Building Type R 18 – 28 (evens) Manor Gardens). Building Type S 16 – 36 (evens) Watery Lane). Building Type T 42 – 46 (evens) Watery Lane). While the majority of buildings within the Conservation Area are architectural “one-offs”, nevertheless the broader architectural styles used through the area (in particular the “domestic revival” and “arts and crafts” styles) are very important to the creation of its distinctive character, and they provide a strong sense of unity to the area. Photographs are set out in this appraisal (appendix 5) to illustrate typical design details used in these architectural styles. These indicate detailing relating to moulded brickwork/terracotta, polychromatic brickwork, hanging tiles, timber frame with infilled panels, use of flint, buttresses, jettied upper floors, balconies, windows, glazing bars, leaded glass, roofs, eaves detailing, gables and bargeboarding, finials, ridge tiles, chimneys, dormer windows, porches, front doors, and gates/gateposts, 10. Building Materials The palette of building materials used for buildings of the “garden suburb” phase of development is quite wide ranging, but is nevertheless highly distinctive, and is seen as a feature of the area which contributes considerably towards its special character. In general the selection of materials is characteristic of traditional building practice, which is symptomatic of neo-vernacular and Arts and Crafts design influences. Examples of the use of building materials are illustrated in the photographs included in this Appraisal (see appendix 5), and where known, the architects are identified. The details are set out below, and for individual buildings in appendix 1: • Bricks This material is commonly used throughout the area, it includes yellow

stock brick, which is often from the earlier “garden suburb” phase (1870s), and red brick of a few years later. Red bricks are also used in conjunction with stock brick as decorative polychromatic detailing. In a few instanced blue bricks are also used for polychromatic effects. Often bricks are used for ground floor levels only, with other materials used on upper floors. A few of the Brocklesby houses use intermixed polychromatic bricks (red/yellow/blue), which gives an attractive textured effect to the walls.

• Render This material is used within the area, but only to a limited degree. In general the texture of pebbledash seems to have been preferred by the architects of the “garden suburb” phase. Render is however quite often used in conjunction with timber frame construction and/or decoration.


25

14

• Clay Hanging Tiles This is a very distinctive feature of both neo-vernacular architecture and the Arts and Crafts style, it is associated with the architects Quartermain and Brocklesby, but particularly the former. It is generally used at the upper levels of a building, often to feature a projecting bay, on dormers, and within a gable. The use of hanging tiles typically involves ornate tiles, sometimes arranged in bands within areas of plain tiles. They are cut either with semi circular lower edges, or with squared zigzag lower edges.

• Timber Frame with infill panels This is a very distinctive feature of the neo-vernacular architecture, and is mainly associated with the architect Quartermain, though there are a few examples in Brocklesby buildings. It is generally used at the upper levels of a building, often to feature a projecting bay and within a gable. Infill panels are generally of render, but occasionally there is use of brickwork infill, usually in herringbone pattern.

• Pebbledash Upper floors commonly use pebbledash, especially on Quartermain buildings. Usually pebbledash is painted over. It generally uses smooth stones rather than angular ones, which gives a distinctive texture.

• Flint A few buildings in the area use flint, these are associated with the architect Brocklesby, and tend to be of a rather later date (1920s).

• Roof Slates Slates are not characteristic of the area generally, where they are used they indicate relatively early buildings (early 19th century up to about 1880), after that the neo vernacular influence tended to favour roof tiles. However a few of the later Brocklesby buildings also make use of slates.

• Plain Clay Roof Tiles Roof tiles are the most typical roofing material of the “garden suburb” phase of development. Buildings using this material tend to be either pre 1800, or after 1880.

• Ornate Clay Roof Tiles A feature of Quartermain houses is the use of ornate roof tiles, these are moulded to give texture. Several of the Brocklesby houses use pantiles, which give a rippled effect to the roof.

• Ridge Tiles/finials Ridge tiles and finials are often used by Quartermain for added decorative effect to the skyline. Finials are mostly terracotta.

• Window frames Window frames are typically of timber. In general the “garden suburb” phase of development involves sliding sash windows, but Brocklesby’s work is more characteristically associated with timber framed casement windows, subdivided into small panes by glazing bars.

11. Building Alterations Certain small scale alterations made to the original buildings in the Conservation Area are evident. An assessment has been made of the main alterations which have been made to each property, which have had some impact on the character of the building, and which are noticeable from the street. These alterations include replacement windows, which in all but a very few cases have had an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the building. In many cases this can include the use of plastic window frames or exposed aluminium frames, which materials are not appropriate to the period of the buildings construction. Other examples of a small-scale alterations are the replacement of an original front doors, the infilling of open fronted porches, painting over masonry, re-roofing (using different roofing materials), and cladding with render or pebbledash on top of brickwork. In some cases extensions, which fail to respect the essential character of the parent building, are also seen. These can include roof extensions, side extensions (of one or more storeys) and even front extensions.


26

15

Appendix 2 itemises where such adverse alterations have occurred (as at 2005). The majority of these changes are small in scale, and seen individually have only very minor impact on general character. However the cumulative impact of several such changes can be highly damaging, and can sometimes lead to a situation where re-consideration has to be given to the validity of Conservation Area designation. By far the most common alteration to have been carried out is the creation of an off-street car parking space within the frontage of the property. It is often difficult to distinguish between situations where off-street car parking has been included with the initial development, and (the more common situation), those where it has been added later. Throughout large parts of the Conservation Area this is almost universal, and where front gardens are large and where they have wide frontages, the visual impact is limited. An example of the harm that can be done is seen at no 21 Mostyn Rd, where most frontage vegetation has been lost, and a large part of the frontage space is given over to hard surfaces. There are however a few areas of the Conservation Area where there is a distinct lack of front garden parking, usually these areas coincide with the smaller terraces or semi detached cottages, but lack of front garden parking is also evident in parts of Melrose Rd. Replacement windows, which use inappropriate window frames, occur throughout the Conservation Area, affecting around one in 5 to one in 10 buildings. There are however clusters in parts of Manor Gardens, and the western ends of Langley Rd and Church Path. The addition of, or enclosure of open fronted porches, can have a significant effect on the architectural quality of a building. This type of work has been undertaken in most parts of the Conservation Area, with clusters in Manor Gardens, in Melrose Rd (especially the eastern part) and on the eastern side of Church Lane. Front doors have been replaced in some parts of the Conservation Area, the main clusters being in the terraced houses in Watery Lane, houses in the middle section of Mostyn Rd (east side), and the cottages at the southern end of Church Lane. A scattering of similar alterations is seen throughout most parts of the Conservation Area. Alteration of roofing materials are not common in the Conservation Area, but there are small clusters where such changers have occurred in Melrose Rd, Kingston Rd, and the east-west arm of Church Lane. Painted brickwork appears in some cases to be original to some of the arts and crafts buildings in Melrose Rd, and possibly also in Watery Lane. Elsewhere there have been a only few instances of brickwork having been painted over subsequent to original construction. Most of these are concentrated in two clusters, firstly in the terrace houses in Watery Lane and secondly in the cottages on the south side of the east-west arm of Church Lane. Cladding of buildings can often be particularly damaging to their architectural character. Fortunately there are only 4 instances of this in the Conservation Area, and even here it is not always certain as to whether in all cases the cladding was part of the original design. A very large number of building extensions have been carried out in the area. This is not surprising given the relatively low density at which the area has been developed,


27

16

and the relatively large size of many of the building plots. Extensions include roof extensions, side extensions, porch extensions and rear extensions. Instances of the latter have not been recorded here, and they, in any event, usually have much less impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Extensions are scattered throughout the Conservation Area, with no specific concentrations. Their quality varies, in some cases being such faithful interpretations of the original “parent” building that it is not obvious whether they are in fact extensions at all. Other extensions are much less successful, and are damaging to the architectural quality of the character of the parent building. The majority of these minor changes do not require specific planning permission, however the two Article 4 Directions are in force, which has limited certain aspects of permitted development within certain parts of the Conservation Area. The details of the coverage and scope of these Article 4 Directions are set out in section 26 below, and in plan DLU/2183 a/b. The Council can seek a further extension of planning control to extend and widen Article 4 Direction powers. Possible action of this type is proposed in section 29 (Opportunities and Recommendations) below. 12. Street Layout The mediaeval village origins of parts of the Conservation are evident from the layout of some of its streets. Narrow twisting streets, with irregular layouts and irregular widths and radii are typical of this origin. Such streets are seen at the eastern section of Church Path, at Watery Lane, and to some extent at Blakesley Walk. In addition the sharp double bend at the northern end of Church Lane also betrays similar origins. The western end of Church Path also has ancient origins but these are not evident from the regularity of its current layout or character. Generally these street layout features are highly distinctive and unusual in the context of street layouts in suburban south London. The alignment of Kingston Rd is also indicative of its origins as a narrow twisting country lane. Surprisingly, given its current use as a major artery for through traffic, it has retained much of this informal character. Its width varies, widening in places and then narrowing again, and the harsh straight lines and geometrically calculated radii beloved of traffic engineers, are largely absent. For all this however this street does suffer from very heavy through traffic, which has a particularly severe and adverse impact on the environment experienced by pedestrians using the generally very narrow footways. The layout of the remaining streets running to the south of Kingston Rd is typical of the Victorian idea of a “quality” suburb, and the later concept of the garden suburb. These streets include Mostyn Rd, Dorset Rd, Sheridan Rd, Melrose Rd and Langley Rd. They form a regular grid of straight streets, in which east – west streets intersect at approximate right angles with north – south streets. Langley Rd is unusual, being a dog-leg cul-de-sac at its western end. It seems likely that it was originally intended that Langley Rd should extend to connect to Sheridan Rd, and the layout of the kerbstones in Sheridan Rd, adjacent to 7a Sheridan Rd, suggests that this was originally planned. The orientation of Dorset Rd is an exception to the overall grid pattern, its alignment clearly influenced by that of the railway line to the east.


28

17

Much of Church Lane displays the characteristics of the grid of streets, despite its earlier origins. The positioning and the alignment of the eastern part of Sheridan Rd appears to have been influenced by older field boundaries, however elsewhere old field boundaries do not appear to have influenced the layout of the garden suburb streets. The western end of Sheridan Rd stops short of linking with the Rush, though it seems likely that linkage here was the original intention. The character of these Victorian streets is itself highly distinctive, and demonstrative of the general philosophy behind the development of this time. Most streets have grass verges which incorporate street tree planting. Street widths are regular, giving the character of a spacious and coherent, “planned” development. 13. Building plots Both the width and the depth of building plots very considerably in the Conservation Area. The depth of plots essentially depends on the size of the street block. The width of each plot is subject to more localised influences. In some streets, or in some sections of a street, there is regularity in the width of each building plot, but elsewhere each individual plot varies in width from its neighbour. Mostly the small terraced and semi detached cottages have small, narrow, rhythmical and regular plots (eg the cottages at the south end of Church Lane, at 32 – 50 Mostyn Rd and at 1 – 7 Melrose Rd). However this is not the case with the older cottages at 15 – 25 Church Path. By contrast most building plots in Sheridan Rd and the eastern part of Church Path are both wider and more irregular. Rhythm and regularity in plot widths are also seen at 3 – 10 Church Lane, at 11 – 22 Church Lane, at 21 – 33 Dorset Rd, at 1 – 7 Dorset Rd, at 166 – 174 Kingston Rd, at 6 – 20 Melrose Rd, at 21 – 29 Melrose Rd, at 9 – 15 Melrose Rd, on most of the eastern side of Dorset Rd, and at 2 – 16, 18 – 28 and 1 – 27 Manor Gardens. They also occur on a smaller scale elsewhere. Plots are generally oriented broadly at right angles to the street. 14. Building Height The great majority of buildings in the Conservation Area are 2 storeys high. A very few are lower, both single storey (bungalows of more recent date) and a few one and a half storey buildings. Some of the larger villas and mansions are two and a half storeys, as are a few smaller houses. There are some 3 storey buildings, but apart from the 18th century Dorset Hall, these are more recent developments of flats. Details of the maximum height of individual buildings are set out in appendix 1. 15. Building form The form of buildings varies considerably in the area, including detached houses, semi detached and terraces.


29

18

Terraces are relatively few in number, being limited to 4 terraces at the southern end of Church Lane, 3 terraces in Watery Lane, 3 terraces in Manor Gardens, and at 15 – 25 Church Path, 40 – 50 Mostyn Rd. Elsewhere detached and semi-detached houses are largely mixed together, the main exceptions to this being the longer runs of semi detached houses at 3 – 22 (consec) Church Lane, 21 – 31 Dorset Rd, and 1 – 15 Melrose Rd. 16. Building Line Perhaps surprisingly for what is largely a planned “garden Suburb” development, there is considerable variety in the relationship of buildings to the streets. In some streets building lines are clearly defined and observed quite rigidly. Elsewhere there is considerable variation in the way building lines are set relative to the street. Details are set out below: • Church Lane: Buildings in Church Lane are generally set in strict accordance

with a clear building line, and they mostly face squarely towards the street. The main exceptions to this are firstly at the northern end of the road, where there is a sharp double bend in the alignment of the street, and where no specific building line is observed. The second exception is in respect of the frontage alignment of Richard Thornton House (no. 30) which is set at an angle to the line of the street.

• Church Path: Most of Church Path has no observable building line, in places cottages are built up to the edge of the street, elsewhere there is considerable variation in the spacing between building and the street. There is however a more ordered arrangement to the west of Mostyn Rd, where buildings are set square to the street, though even here, where the street narrows to a footpath, the buildings stand forward of the line set by buildings further east.

• Dorset Rd: Most of Dorset Rd has a clearly defined building line, and buildings are set squarely in relation to the line of the road. However to the south of the Sheridan Rd junction, building frontages are at a slight angle relative to the road, and the building line itself tapers, becoming slightly narrower towards the Sheridan Rd junction.

• Kingston Rd: The line of Kingston Rd has both convex and concave bends. The frontages of most buildings follow these bends, but there are a few individual cases where older buildings stand closer to the road than is generally the case. At the western end also buildings are set closer to the road, in order to pick up the alignment of the adjacent Merton Park Parade (outside the Conservation Area). While generally buildings are set roughly square to the line of the road, in the middle section, between Mostyn Rd and Church Lane they are set at an variable angle to the curved line of the road, but at a mainly consistent angle one to another.

• Langley Rd: Most of Langley Rd offers no consistent building frontages, so that a building line is not readily discernable. However at the western end nos. 2 – 10 have a clear and regular building line, with houses set square to the line of the road.

• Manor Gardens: Manor Gardens has a very obvious building line throughout. The only departure from this are the facades of the mid terrace houses, which are recessed, relative to that of the end of terraced houses and the semi detached houses. In all cases houses are set square to the road

• Melrose Rd: Most of Melrose Rd has a quite irregular building line. Only on the south side of the road is there an ordered building line, and even here buildings at 1a to 7 are set slightly further forward compared to those further east. Frontage buildings at Old School Close are deliberately staggered back and forward,


30

19

irregularly, relative to the road. On the north side of the road, in the mid section, houses (numbers 4 – 20) are set back behind a very deep building line. To each side of that however there is a more conventional arrangement, but to the east the buildings are splayed to reflect the bend in this part of the road, that splay however is such as to gradually reduce the depth of the building line progressively towards the east. Generally buildings in Melrose Rd are set square to the line of the road, but this is not the case with the splayed buildings at the eastern end (north side).

• Mostyn Rd: The northern half of Mostyn Rd (to the north of Church Path) has a fairly regular building line, with buildings set square to the road. To the south of Church Path there is greater irregularity, with (on the east side) the cottages and the house at 32 – 52 being set closer to the road than is typical of this road. To the south of that buildings are set more irregularly with numbers 54/54a being located well back within the centre of its plot, and with no 56 being set at an angle to the line of the road. The remaining houses to the south of 56 resume a consistent observance of a building line, and their frontages also sit square to the road. On the west side of the road, to the south of Church Path, there is no consistency of building frontages, so that a building line is not readily discernable.

• Sheridan Rd: In the eastern part of Sheridan Rd (to the east of Church Lane), there are few building frontages, and most are set at a slight angle to the line of the road. However nos. 2 and 4 are set square. Further west (between Church Lane and Mostyn Rd), on the north side, buildings follow an approximate building line, but with small local variations. Generally here buildings are set square to the road, but not in the case of nos. 13/15. On the south side building frontages appear to follow a slightly bowed building line, where the centre section is set further away from the road. While most of these house frontages are set square to the road, those at the western end (nos. 28 to 34/34a) are set at a slight angle. The western end of Sheridan Rd (west of Mostyn Rd), has no discernable building line on the north side, with houses being set roughly in the centre of their plots. On the south side it is slightly more orderly, but even here there are local variations in the building line. All the houses in this western part of the road are set square to the road.

• Watery Lane: Most of Watery Lane has a highly irregular building line arrangement. Only at the northern end of the road do they respect a clearly defined line, it is a deeper building line on the eastern side than it is on the western side. To the south of Manor Gardens, (on the southern/eastern side) there are few building frontages and no consistent building line can be observed. The few buildings in this area are aligned independent of the line of the road. On the north side, there is much more intensity of building frontages, but these frontages are very irregular. Generally they are set in splayed fashion in order to reflect the curved alignment of the road. The two terraces in the middle section (nos. 16 – 36) are set very close to the road, with only very small front gardens. The terrace and freestanding block to the west (nos. 38 – 48), are set firmly at the very back of their respective plots, with very long front gardens, some of which have garages. Further east the arrangement of frontages at 10 – 14a/14b is very irregular. In particular nos. 14a/14b are set too far back to accurately reflect the characteristics of the road.

• Erridge Rd: Only the Merton Park school fronts onto Erridge Rd, all the other frontages within the Conservation Area are open spaces. The school presents no building line frontage to the road, its frontage being oriented at an angle to the line of the road.

17. Roof Form


31

20

Roof forms in this area are quite varied. The majority of buildings have either hipped or gabled roofs, with some oriented in parallel with the line of the road and others at right angles. Subsidiary roofs (with lower ridge heights) often spur off the main roof, covering forward or side projecting bays. These subsidiary roofs also involve a mix of hips and gables. Many of the buildings in the area have quite complex roof forms, and while this is not universal to the area it is nevertheless a characteristic and distinctive feature of the area. There are, in addition to gables and hipped roofs a few half hips, mansards and gablet roofs, and a few flat roofs, the latter being on newer buildings. Most of the buildings in the area have fairly steeply pitched roofs, and this is sufficiently repeated in the area as to be a contributory factor in its distinctive appearance and character. However a few buildings have very shallow pitched roofs, which are typical of buildings of the Regency and early Victorian period. This shallow pitch has been used by the architect Brocklesby in a few of his early 20th century houses in Melrose Rd and Watery Lane. At the opposite extreme Brocklesby is also noted for a couple of very steep roof pitches, at his Arts and Crafts house at 17 Watery Lane (“Steep Roof”), and at 78 Church Lane. These two, together with 1a Church Lane (not a Brocklesby house), are the only examples of this roof pitch in the area, but they are very characteristic of this Arts and Crafts architectural style. In the case of semi-detached and terraced houses from the “garden suburb” phase of development, in party wall and flank wall are often seen to break through the roof plane, but this is by no means universally the case. With most earlier, and all later buildings this is not the case. 18. Rhythm and Symmetry of Buildings As a general rule symmetry to the front elevation is not a feature of the neo vernacular, or Arts and Crafts architecture which typifies the “garden suburb” phase of development in the area. However pairs of semi detached houses generally, but not universally, show symmetry, and similarly pairs of houses within a terrace often have symmetry. Occasionally the terrace as a whole has symmetrical characteristics. A symmetrical front elevation for a detached dwelling is quite rare, but there are examples at Dorset Hall, at 146 and 180 Kingston Rd, and at 16 – 22 Church Path, each of which either pre-date or post date the “garden suburb” phase. No. 8 Watery Lane is a rare example of detached symmetry of the “garden suburb” period. Buildings displaying symmetrical elevations are identified on plan DLU/2186 a/b. Each of the two main facades of the Merton Park School, has a symmetry, but the building overall does no, as there are design differences between one façade and the other. Regularity in the rhythm of buildings fronting the street is again uncommon in the area. Where is does occur, it tends to be for only short sections of the street. These are also shown on plan DLU/2186 a/b. While terraces of houses are seen in certain parts of the Conservation Area, in other areas the feeling of separation between one house and its neighbour is important, giving as it does a sense of spaciousness, and allowing greater prominence to landscape features.


32

21

19. Gardens and Spaces between and around Buildings Front gardens are mainly of medium size in this Conservation Area, with a few smaller and a few larger ones. Throughout the whole of the Conservation Area these spaces are intensively planted, and as a result they make a substantial contribution to the street scene, by providing a landscaped setting for the buildings. Hedges, most notably holly hedges, are a particular feature which contribute to the rustic character of the area. These features are shown on plan DLU/2184 a/b. The issues of garden trees and hedges are dealt with in the section on trees and landscape below. The issue of streets as public spaces is dealt with in the section on streets below. Many front gardens have had car parking spaces or driveways constructed within them. Generally this type of work has had a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area, as a result of loss of vegetation within the front garden areas and loss of sections of front boundary treatments (especially hedges) along the back edge of the footway. Front garden parking is shown in appendix 2. The spaces which separate one building from its neighbours are for the most part quite generous. Theses spaces are mainly however quite irregular, in some situations being wider, in others narrower. Overall however, they make a significant contribution to the semi-rural character of the area. The spaces allow views from the street into the backland areas, and in particular to the larger trees within these backland areas. The spaces also contribute to a sense of separation of one building in relation to its neighbours. In some places the spaces between buildings have been infilled by the addition of single storey structures, often garages. Even where this type of infill has taken place it does not invalidate the value of the space, as views of trees within the backland may often be obtained above the single storey structure, and the sense of separation of one building from its neighbours it still to a degree preserved. Side extensions, even when they are well designed, erode these spaces. On a cumulative basis they would be capable of transforming the character of the area. The generous side plots which exist alongside some houses in the area, make it attractive for property owners to enlarge their houses in this way. Such recent side extensions have occurred at, or are anticipated at 42 and 19 Sheridan Rd, and at 21 and 14 Mostyn Rd. In some places the original timber gates and the distinctive metal gateposts have been retained at pedestrian front entrances to front gardens from the street. More typically only the gateposts survive. At one time these features must have been more common than they are now. They do however serve as a reminder of the original design ideas used in the initial development of the area as a “garden suburb”. A good example of both the gate and the gateposts can be seen at no 12 Church Lane (see photo). Restoration of these features, where they are currently missing would be a good way of achieving enhancement of the character of the area. The garden at no. 29 Mostyn Rd, (a Brocklesby house), was designed by Gertrude Jekyll.


33

22

The Merton Park school playground is almost entirely tarmaced over, there being only a few small trees within the site, and a small garden area at the eastern end of the site. The presentation of the playground is not helped by the use of unsightly chain link fencing along the frontages of Erridge Rd and the footpath link to Church Lane. In parts of the Conservation Area an Article 4 Direction is in force which controls creation of hard standings, and works to gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure, details of this are set out in the section on trees and landscape below. 20. Larger Green Spaces Larger green spaces make a significant contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. There are several larger green spaces within the Conservation Area, each with its own particular and distinct character. They are: • John Innes Park This is a highly distinctive landscaped public park, with a

Victorian character, and heavy (often evergreen) planting. It was laid out by John Innes as private grounds attached to his house at Manor House in Watery Lane. The original entrance to the Manor House was adjacent to the Lodge in Mostyn Rd, and a sinuous carriage drive ran through the present day park. This route still exists as one of the park’s paths. After John Innes’s death the park was opened as a public park (1909). It contains a number of very attractive buildings and structures, such as the bandstand (architect Brocklesby), the public toilets, the entrance lodge, the gardener’s cottage, and the brick archway (architect Quartermain), some of which pre-date its role as a public park, and others to serve the newly opened public park. The park provides for both active and passive recreation. New tennis courts and a croquet lawn were later added, on what had been a vegetable garden, and a bandstand added in the former fruit garden. The overall design partitions the park into a series of smaller spaces, with planting to screen one space from another, and to define secluded evergreen walks. It is a very fine example of late Victorian and Edwardian landscape and park design. Consideration is to be given to including this park on a Local List of Parks and Gardens, and to this end research has recently been carried out into its history by the London Parks and Gardens Trust.

• Playing Field in Church Lane This is a flat and open site, whose main interest derives from the high historic wall which surrounds it (part 16th, part 17th centuries and later). For this reason the space is almost entirely hidden from view from the surrounding streets, and can only be seen through the iron gates at the Church Lane entrance. Public access is available, but the only access is taken by means of the large wrought iron gate in Church Lane. The history of the space is clearly linked to the large house which once stood on its SE corner (now demolished). The history of this house (known as Church House or Merton Place) is covered in section 4 above. A few trees have been planted within the area, and there is an old mulberry near the Church Lane entrance. It is used for informal recreation, and as an educational resource by the local school, who established a nature conservation area here inn the 1980s. Consideration is to be given to including this open space on a Local List of Parks and Gardens, and to this end research has recently been carried out ion its history by the London Parks and Gardens Trust.

• The Church Yard and Glebe Field This churchyard is a very informal graveyard, in places much overgrown, which gives an atmosphere of picturesque and romantic neglect. It contains some particularly fine trees, including yew, copper beech, horse chestnut and lime, which can be appreciated from both Church Lane and Erridge Rd. The church is set within the space but the space extends


34

23

mainly to the south of the church. The churchyard presents a very attractive prospect as seen from Church Lane. It includes two Listed (Grade II) structures, the Priory Archway to the west of the church, and the war memorial at the NE corner of the site. The churchyard also contains the graves of John Innes (20th century) and William Rutlish (17th century). The Glebe Field is a very informal series of linked pasture fields, with substantial vegetation around the edges. An informal field path runs through the open space connecting Erridge Rd to Church Path. Consideration is to be given to including these two spaces on a Local List of Parks and Gardens, and to this end research has recently been carried out on its history by the London Parks and Gardens Trust.

• The Playing Field at Cannon Hill Lane/Manor Rd This is a large open, flat and rather featureless playing field at the western end of the Conservation Area. It has a rustic timber pavilion in the south-western corner. It has very informal field hedge boundaries on its northern, western and southern sides, which include many trees. There are no trees or other landscape features except around and close to the edges of the space.

21. Streets The quality of street design and street materials is generally very good. These are usually original street materials dating from the original layout of the side roads off Kingston Rd. There have however been a number of unfortunate recent interventions, which have had a decidedly adverse impact on the overall design quality. Some streets retain rows of setts within the gullies, though there is evidence that with street repairs, these have sometimes een covered over, or removed. It is reasonable to assume that originally these gully setts would have been general throughout the area. Details of street materials and street design are set out in appendix 3, and in the supplementary notes below: Mostyn Rd There is a speed table with wide yellow keep clear markings at the entrance to the school. Some footway crossovers are redundant, and there is an opportunity to restore footway slabs and grass verges. Langley Rd One crossover has granite corner blocks and a return of granite kerbstones. Some of the gully sets have been either covered over or removed. The Wykeham Lodge cul-de-sac has wide sweeping radii at the junction with Langley Rd, which is out of character for the general street design in the area. The western part of Langley Rd has no separate footways or kerb definition. Alongside the bitmac carriageway (shared surface) there are wide grass verges, however in many places this verge has been replaced with a hard surface, often bitmac, but in other cases with a variety of surfacing materials (various types of slabs, gravel and block paving) in order to cater for additional car parking. These changes are undoubtedly detrimental to the original distinctive character of the street. Sheridan Rd – Some of the crossovers use granite corner blocks. In one case (at the western end the crossover is of concrete block paving, which is not appropriate to the character of the area. The path at the western end of Sheridan Rd (link to Watery Lane) is of bitmac, with a steel post at one end and “chalk stick” bollards at the other. At the eastern end of Sheridan Rd the Tramlink footpath is of bitmac. Dorset Rd – Some of the crossovers use granite corner blocks and granite kerbstone returns. Church Lane – The eastwards extension of Church Lane has no defined footpaths, and the whole width is surfaced with loose gravel. Granite corner blocks and granite return kerbs demarcate its junction with Church Lane proper. The footpath that links to Erridge Rd is surfaced with bitmac, and on one side there is a drainage channel of


35

24

Staffordshire blue profiled blocks. Galvanised steel chicane barriers are used at each end. Melrose Rd – Some crossovers have granite corner blocks and granite kerb returns. In the western part of Melrose Rd each parking bay is located partly on the carriageway and partly on the bitmac verge, this is detrimental to the street scene, and to the character of the Conservation Area. Church Path – The eastern end of Church Path has a bitmac footpath adjacent to the Church, which is edged by narrow granite kerbs. At the entrance to the small development at 7/9/11 Church Path there is an inappropriately designed footpath, also of bitmac, but with a radius of concrete kerbs. Elsewhere there is no defined footpath. The planted “island” within the street is in part edged by narrow granite kerbs, and it is also surrounded by low iron railings. This island includes mature trees, including holly, holm oak and ash. At the junction of Church Path and Church Lane there is a disagreeable clutter of signs and street furniture. This consists of a parking meter and an associated grouping of protective steel bollards inappropriately placed adjacent to the Listed wall, and a chaotic assembly signs and litter bins which disfigure the eastern end of the “island”. Further west the full width of Church Path is surfaced with bitmac. Inappropriate concrete blocks are used for the entrance to the small residential development at 16 – 22 Church Path. To the west of Mostyn Rd, Church Path has a defined footway on the south side only. The carriageway is in part surfaced with semi bonded gravel, and in part by bitmac. The footpath that links to Watery Lane is surfaced with bitmac, and pairs of “chalk stick” bollards are used at each end. Watery Lane – Much of Watery Lane has no footway or kerbs, and its very informal character is a very positive feature in the area. Several moulded metal bollards are used in the footway adjacent to the Sheridan Rd footpath. Kingston Rd – At the far eastern end there is a forecourt area which is surfaced with inappropriate small multi-coloured concrete slabs. Adjacent to the Church Lane junction there is a central “island” of grass within the footway area, together with a concrete and timber bench. To the west of the Mostyn Rd junction there is a bus shelter, black litterbin and the “Listed” telephone kiosk. Street name signs are of mixed designs. In recent years a blue “conservation area” design has been used, which incorporates the holly leaf motif which is associated with the area. Street trees are dealt with in section 22 (trees and landscape) below. The Unitary Development Plan indicates four existing cycle routes which run through the Conservation Area. The first of these runs along Cannon Hill Lane, Manor Rd, Watery Lane, and Sheridan Rd, from where it continues to cross the Tram line to Melbourne Rd and beyond. The second route enters the Conservation Area from the north (Wilton Grove), crossing Kingston Rd and then along Church Lane, to link up with the first route (above). The third route runs from route 1 above (at Watery Lane) along Church Path and Melrose Rd to Dorset Rd, where it connects with route 4 (see below). The fourth route enters the Conservation Area from the north, running along Dorset Rd, then via Melrose Rd into Poplar Rd. A further proposed cycle route is shown as an extension along Dorset Rd from the junction of Dorset and Melrose Roads.


36

25

A Controlled Parking Zone, centred on Wimbledon Town Centre has been defined throughout almost all of the Conservation Area, only Watery Lane, Manor Gardens Erridge Rd, and a small part of Mostyn Rd (within the Conservation Area) and part of Church Path (east) lie outside it. 22. Trees/landscape Trees make a very important contribution to the special character and appearance of this Conservation Area. Trees and landscape elements are considered to be of about equal importance as buildings and architecture in defining the special character of the area. There are currently 11 Tree Preservation Orders covering trees within the Conservation Area. The details are set out below: • TPO 2 – 15 Dorset Rd – walnut tree in back garden. • TPO 6 – including all properties in the CA within by street blocks defined by

Sheridan Rd, Dorset Rd, Melrose Rd, and Church Lane, but also including 1a, 11, 17 and 29 Melrose Rd, as well as 2a/2b Poplar Rd – a large number of trees specifically listed.

• TPO 9 – including all properties in the CA within by street blocks defined by Kingston Rd, Watery Lane, Church Path, and Mostyn Rd, but also including 2 – 8 (evens) Watery Lane – a large number of trees specifically listed.

• TPO 115 – 35 Mostyn Rd – Corsican pine in front garden. • TPO 117 – 30 Church Lane (Richard Thornton House) – yew tree in front garden. • TPO 152 – Glebe Field – various trees identified within the Glebe Field around

the boundary of the site. • TPO M211 – 146/148 Kingston Rd, and 2/2a/2b Dorset Rd – mixed hardwood

trees within the curtilage, and woodland at 2 Dorset Rd. • TPO M213 – 180 Kingston Rd – various trees in rear garden. • TPO M255 – 1 Church Lane – ash tree in rear garden. • TPO M286 – 71 Church Lane – horse chestnut in front garden. • TPO M333 – churchyard – various trees. Street trees also make a major contribution to much of the Conservation Area. Mostyn Rd – Street trees in Mostyn Rd mostly comprise medium sized horse chestnuts, with a few other small trees, notably some generally rather stunted cherries. Langley Rd – The eastern part of Langley Rd has distinctively different silver birch trees with one Turkish hazel. Further west there are more silver birches and some cherries, one of which is dead. Sheridan Rd – At the western end, and in the middle section there are very large majestic plane trees. At the eastern end there is a greater mix of tree species, including mostly limes, with some chestnuts, and acers. Some small newly planted trees have recently been added, one of which has died. The uniformity of trees species in the western and middle sections of the road is considered to be more distinctive for the street character than the diversity seen in the eastern part. Dorset Rd – There are some very large plane trees of excellent quality. There are also several large sycamores, and some newly planted small trees, including some planes. Church Lane – At the southern end there are good quality medium and large chestnuts and limes within the eastern footway. In the central and northern sections


37

26

of Church Lane there are some Turkish hazels including some good mature specimens, together with some large limes and one alder. Melrose Rd – Good quality medium and large sized street trees (limes, chestnuts, and one Turkish hazel). Two medium sized trees appear to be dead, and should be removed and replaced. Church Path – None of this street has street trees, except for the “island” at the eastern end. This includes various trees and shrubs, including holm oak, holly, silver birch and ash. Erridge Rd – On the north side of the street (within the Conservation Area), there are trees of varied sizes, ranging from newly planted to good quality mature limes. Watery Lane – no street trees Manor Gardens – This street has excellent large limes and plane trees. There are two further trees of different species, including one rather stunted cherry. Kingston Rd – There are no street trees in Kingston Rd except for one very poor quality holly tree located in the “island” of grass to the east of the Church Lane junction. There is an opportunity for enhancement here, with the planting of new trees in this location. Plan DLU/2187 a/b indicates the location and number of street trees. Many trees and groups of trees within gardens and street blocks make a significant contribution to the overall character of the Conservation Area. Where these contribute to the street scene, they are shown on plan DLU/2194 a/b. Two Article 4 Directions are in force, which have a bearing on the protection of landscape elements. The details of these Directions are set out in section 26 below, and on plan DLU/2183 a/b. Holly hedges are a very important feature in the street scene in much of the Conservation Area. These features are in fact one of the most important symbols of the original involvement of the horticulturalist John Innes in the original development, not only of this Conservation Area, but also the Wilton Crescent Conservation Area to the north of Kingston Rd. Holly hedges therefore provide a tangible degree of unity between these two conservation areas. Plan DLU/2184 a/b indicates the current location of these hedges. There are some other (non holly) hedges, which also contribute to the rustic and semi rural character of the area. 23. Ecology There are two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) defined within the Conservation Area. They are at the Playing Field in Church Lane and the churchyard and Glebe Field. Both of these sites are defined as sites of local importance. On the Playing Field site, it is noted that plants exist on the surrounding wall including ivy, ivy leaved toadflax and maidenhair spleenwort (fern). Trees include maple, oak, ash, false acacia and sycamore, as well as a fine old mulberry. The main area of the field is frequently mown grass, but hedge bedstraw can be found here, as well as other more common grassland plants. In the less frequently mown corners of the field are common mallow, common nettle and male-fern. Birds observed include house martin, wren, robin, great spotted and green woodpeckers, collared dove and great tit. On the southern edge of the park a nature area has been created by a local


38

27

school, which includes a small pond with frogs and newts. Here grass cutting is less frequent. Hedge bedstraw, hogweed, thistle, common nettle, elm sycamore, primrose, bluebell violets, and oxeye daisy can be seen. A hedgerow is underplanted with daffodils. Bird and bat boxes have been provided. A fox’s earth has also been dug. The churchyard and Glebe Field site. This site is in two parts, both owned by the church. The churchyard includes infrequently mown grass, and several specimen trees, including a large copper beech, and a row of limes and horse chestnuts on the Church Lane frontage. Bluebells, hedgerow cranes-bill and cow parsley grow in the shade, as well as false-brome. The two Glebe Fields adjacent to the churchyard are separated by traces of the former bank and ditch which originally separated them. Trees include horse chestnuts, tall limes, elm suckers and elder bushes, as well as some exotics. The grassland includes rye grass, cocks-foot, rough meadow grass, Yorkshire fog and common bent. It also includes bird’s foot trefoil, autumn hawkbit, cat’s ear, common knapweed and selfheal. At the hedge bottoms there is hedge crane’s-bill, bramble, and black bryony. In the dense shade there is cow parsley and ivy. Stag beetles are common, holly blue and meadow brown butterflies are also present. Birds include chaffinch, bullfinch, mistle thrush, spotted flycatcher, long tailed tit and coal tit. In addition spotted woodpecker, goldcrest, nuthatch and tawny owl have also been seen. Visiting birds include kestrel, woodcock, great spotted woodpecker, swallow, meadow pipit, fieldfare, redwing, garden warbler, blackcap, chiffchaff, willow warbler, sparrow hawks and tree creeper. The diversity of the Glebe Fields benefits from the adjacent complex of large gardens, and the nearby large trees. The diversity of species observed in the Glebe Field are common in pastoral countryside, but unusual in suburban London. The tram line land which runs adjacent to the north-east boundary of the Conservation Area is designated as both a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and as a green corridor. The SINC is valued as a Borough Grade 2 site. These designations may have implications for any possible development proposals within the Conservation Area. Development proposals should avoid harm to the nature conservation value of the SINC site, or if harm cannot be avoided should make compensatory restitution. In addition, backland areas, which mainly comprise blocks of land containing back gardens, do themselves have ecological value from the point of view of the habitat that they contain, and this too will be taken into account when assessing development proposals. 24. Views The Conservation Area is flat, and with its streets and public spaces being generally well contained by buildings and major landscape features, as a result, it lacks any long distance views. Medium distance views are available across the main open spaces. Probably the finest view is from the more westerly of the two Glebe Field gates in Erridge Rd, looking across the Glebe Field. In winter this reveals views of the Church and the vicarage, and is reminiscent of what would originally have been longer views of these features across extensive open fields. Another One such view is from Church Lane, looking through the entrance gate, across the playing fields site, another is across the open expanse of the playing field at Cannon Hill/Manor Rd, a third looks through


39

28

the vegetation of the churchyard from Church Lane, and finally views into the John Innes Park from Mostyn Rd. These views generally lack any specific focal point. Other than these, the views are limited to short distance views along streets, towards individual buildings, small groups of buildings, and landscape features. Of these the most notable views are towards the most significant buildings, such as the church, and the former village school (now 30 Church Lane). The War Memorial at the junction of Church Lane and Church Path acts as a focal point for views along Church Lane and Melrose Rd. There is an important townscape feature in Church Path which derives from the very strong sense of enclosure in the section of Church Path to the west of the Church. This enclosure is achieved by the tight constriction of the space, defined to the north and south by high walls, with trees behind. This part of Church Path has a twisting configuration which means that new short distance views unfold as one moves east or west along the street. Moving eastwards there is a quite dramatic and sudden increase in scale where the street widens out into a larger space, with a central island of trees and other vegetation. This townscape feature has been diminished by the partial removal of the enclosing wall on the south side, where an overly wide entrance to 7/9/11 Church Path has been formed. Similarly the poor frontage definition adjacent to the Church Hall and its car park diminishes the feeling of enclosure seen elsewhere in this part of Church path. Despite these negative elements, the overall townscape character of this section of Church Path remains as one of the foremost most features of the special character of the Conservation Area, and is strongly characteristic of the original mediaeval village ambience. 25. Landmarks/legibility There are no major landmark buildings in the Conservation Area, however the church, the central island at Church Path (immediately to the north of the church), the former village school building (Richard Thornton House), and the curtilage wall that fronts onto Church Lane and Church Path are all highly distinctive features which provide legibility. In Watery Lane the Manor House building and the adjacent large school building also create distinctiveness and legibility. On Kingston Rd the main distinctive feature within the Conservation Area is Dorset Hall. The Merton Park Primary school makes something of a landmark feature at the southern entrance to the Conservation Area. 26. Article 4 Directions There are two Article 4 Directions currently in force within parts of the Conservation Area. The extent of the Article 4 Directions is illustrated on plan DLU/2183 a/b. The first of these Directions, which was made in 1986, (indicated as Direction A on the Plan) covers the following properties :


40

29

• 2 – 30 (evens) Melrose Rd • 1 – 7 (odds) Melrose Rd • 23 Church Lane • 31 – 61 (consec) Church Lane • 2 – 14 (evens) Watery Lane • 9 – 17 (odds) Watery Lane This Direction involves the withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights in respect of : • the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. This

includes any extension, replacement of doors or windows (including attic or dormer windows) with doors or windows of a different style, or changes to the external finishes such as wall surfaces or roof tiles which would affect the appearance of the building

• The erection of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse. • The erection, construction, improvement or other alteration of gates, fences,

walls or other means of enclosure, whether abutting the highway or not. In addition this same Direction also withdrew additional Permitted Development Rights, only in respect of only to nos. 31 – 61 (consec) Church Lane. This is indicated as Direction A* on the Plan. These additional withdrawn Rights are in respect of : • The construction within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of a hard standing for

vehicles. The second of these Directions, which was made in 1989, (indicated as Direction B on the Plan) covers the following properties : • 1 – 19 (odds) Sheridan Rd • 2 – 42 (evens) Sheridan Rd • “Oxton” and “Ranmore” Sheridan Rd • 10 – 62a (evens) Mostyn Rd • 3 – 35 (odds) Mostyn Rd • John Innes Park • 2 and 10 – 22 (consec) Church Lane • 70 – 78a (consec) Church Lane • 14 and 16 Langley Rd • 20 – 26 (even) Langley Rd • Wykeham Lodge Langley Rd • 162 and 164 Kingston Rd (now 2a Church Lane) • Former Melrose School (now no. 30) Church Lane • “Old School Close” Melrose Rd • 9 – 29 (odds) Melrose Rd • 32 and 34 Melrose Rd • The Vicarage (now nos. 3/5) Church Path • 1 – 7 (odds) Dorset Rd • 33 – 45 (odds) Dorset Rd • 4 – 28 (evens) Dorset Rd This Direction involves the withdrawal of Permitted Development Rights in respect of : • The erection, construction, improvement or other alteration of gates, fences,

walls or other means of enclosure, where they abut a highway used by vehicular traffic or within 7 metres of a highway used by vehicular traffic.


41

30

27. Wykeham Lodge Wykeham Lodge is a residential development which dates from the 1950s. It comprises 4 maisonettes in a small 2 storey block, and 31 flats in a large 2 storey “L” shaped block, these buildings are arranged around 3 sides of a small access road, which runs off Langley Rd. The development took place on what was once the backland area of Dorset Hall, which fronts onto Kingston Rd. Both the layout of the development, and the design of the very open space in front of the buildings are alien to the character of the Conservation Area as a whole. The materials used (harsh yellow bricks) are also very much out of character from those generally seen within the Conservation Area. The redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge may at some stage in the future be envisaged, and if this were to happen then it would present an important opportunity to achieve enhancement of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. If such a development scheme is ever mooted, then a Development Brief would need to be prepared, which will need to have regard to ensuring that this enhancement opportunity is not lost. The essential considerations that would need to be considered would be the design, layout and materials used in the public space (including the street), landscape work (including street frontage definition, eg hedges), the design, positioning of buildings and the choice of building materials, trees, and the relationship of the development to the Listed Dorset Hall. 28. Positive/negative features The positive, negative and neutral features have been referred to in the earlier part of this assessment. This section therefore summarises those references in relation to each of the distinct sub areas in the Conservation Area. Pre Suburban Village

Positive Features • The informality of the street layout in Church Path, with its variations in

width, and changes direction, the “island” within the street, together with the associated unfolding views and townscape qualities.

• The substantial tree coverage within the Churchyard and Glebe Fields and the surroundings.

• The positive contribution made by certain buildings, walls, iron gates and churchyard monuments.

• The historic concentration of church related features (church, vicarage, glebe fields).

Neutral Features • None Negative Features • The negative contribution made by certain buildings, most notably the public

hall and its front curtilage definition. • The definition of the edges of the car park adjacent to the public hall. • The design and layout of the entrance to the housing development at 7/9/11

Church Path.


42

31

• The inappropriateness of the crossover materials at the entrance to the housing development at 16 – 22 Church Path.

• The untidy clutter of signage, bollards and street furniture at the junction of Church Path and Church Lane.

• Some damaging alterations to individual buildings (eg window replacements).

Garden Suburb

Positive Features • The high quality of architectural design used on most of the buildings within

this area. • The high quality of design and detailing and high quality materials used on

many of the buildings, which are demonstrative of a small group of specific known architects, and characteristic of domestic revival and arts and crafts architecture.

• The group value of certain architecturally distinct groups of buildings within the area.

• The general street layout, associated with a planned suburban development.

• The quality of street materials, especially granite kerbs and granite setts. • The high quality landscape features, including in particular hedges

(especially holly hedges), front garden trees, and high quality street trees and grass verges.

• The spacious layout of buildings throughout much of the area, with generous separations between neighbouring buildings.

Neutral Features • None Negative Features • The damage done to front gardens and front curtilage definition, as a result

of the introduction of car parking spaces, and in particular where this has opened out the majority of the front gardens and removed the majority of the front curtilage boundary treatment.

• The negative contribution made by a few buildings in the area. • Some damaging alterations to individual buildings (eg window replacements

and painted brickwork). • The parking arrangements in Melrose Rd where car parking bays are

marked out in part on the carriageway and part on the verge. • Poor quality cherry street trees in part of Mostyn Rd. • The negative contribution made by Wykeham Lodge and the spaces around

it. • The poor quality chain link fencing used along the Erridge Rd frontage of

the Merton Park Primary School, and along its frontage to the footpath which links to Church Lane.

Garden Suburb overlay on Pre Suburban Village


this area. • The high quality of design detailing and high quality materials used on many

of the buildings.


43

32

• The group value of certain architecturally distinct groups of buildings within the area.

• The general street layout, with its very informal lines, and its avoidance of rigidity and straight lines, usually associated with the by law housing, and with road layouts designed to engineering standards.

• The high quality landscape features, including in particular hedges (especially holly hedges), public park and front garden trees.

• The Victorian landscape character and layout of the John Innes Park. • The boundaries of the Recreation Ground which reflect earlier country

lanes. Neutral Features • None Negative Features • A small number of intrusive and inappropriately designed buildings, which

detract from the character of the Conservation Area. • Some damaging alterations to individual buildings (eg window

replacements). • Poorer quality street materials, including visually dominant yellow parking

lines. • Environmental impact of heavy traffic in Kingston Rd. • The narrow footways in Kingston Rd. • Degradation of frontage boundary treatments and front gardens in Kingston

Rd. Manor Gardens


this area, including symmetry of both semi detached and whole terraces of houses.

• The high quality of design detailing and high quality materials used on many of the buildings.

• The group value of certain architecturally distinct groups of buildings within the area

• The quality of street materials, especially granite kerbs and granite setts. • The high quality landscape features, including in particular the fine street

trees. Neutral Features • None Negative Features • The harmful alterations and extensions carried out to certain properties

within the area, including poorly designed roof extensions and window replacements.

29. Opportunities and Recommended Action • Dead street trees within the Conservation Area should be removed and

replaced. The poor quality holly tree within the grass “island” in the footway close to the Kingston Rd/Church Lane junction should also be removed and replaced with new tree planting. The stunted cherry trees in Mostyn Rd should be replaced with new street trees of a more suitable species, (possibly horse chestnuts.


44

33

• Redundant crossovers (in Mostyn Rd) should be removed and the footway and grass verges reinstated.

• In conjunction with street repairs, re-introduce rows of granite gully setts where they are currently absent.

• Article 4 Directions should be sought to protect the holly hedges where they form part of the character of that street within property frontages within parts of the Conservation Area. This would involve the withdrawal of permitted development rights in respect of construction of vehicle hard standings and the creation of vehicle accesses.

• Encourage the planting of new holly hedges, wherever opportunities present themselves.

• Article 4 Directions should be sought to protect the small-scale alterations on the houses within the Conservation Area, including replacement of front doors, infilling of porches, painting of masonry and replacement of windows on the front elevation of buildings.

• Prepare a design brief for the sensitive development of the existing car park site at Church Path, with particular regard to the improvement of definition of the street frontage, footpath connection to Erridge Rd, and views of the Glebe Field.

• If in the future, the possibility of redevelopment of the Wykeham Lodge site were to be envisaged, then a design brief for the sensitive development of the site should be undertaken, with a view to securing an improvement of definition of the street frontage, the design of the frontage space, and the positioning, design and materials to be used for any new buildings.

• The 100 mm wide yellow parking control lines should be amended to the narrower 50 mm. width, so as to reduce their intrusive appearance.

• The re-introduction of the distinctive gates and gate posts (as seen at 12 Church Lane) should be encouraged in conjunction with planning applications for development.

• Tree Preservation Orders shall be considered for all significant trees and tree groups, which are placed at risk of removal as part of any tree works in a conservation area.

• Restore road-side grass verges where they have previously been removed, specifically Dorset Rd is a candidate for such work, but Melrose Rd maybe another.

• Seek improvements to the views of the Glebe Field, from Chuch Path, if possible through the removal of outbuildings adjacent to the car park.

• Where new street name signs are required, use the blue “conservation area” type, which includes the holly leaf motif.

• Seek an upgrade of the chain link fencing, which runs along the south and west boundaries of the Merton Park Primary school site. Use of iron railings would be more appropriate boundary treatment.

July 2006


45

34

APPENDIX 1 - Building information Information given in brackets is based on probable or deduced rather than certain or confirmed information. Age of buildings is usually established from the date when plans were submitted. Where this information is not available, then a assessment is made based on the appearance of the building and/or historic maps. Architects are referred to as: B = Brocklesby, Q = Quartermain, M = Marsh, N = Newell, F = Farrier, S = Sullivan, and A/W = Aldridge and Willis. An * indicates (possible) alterations by the named architect (eg B*). An “s” = in the style of (eg sQ is in style of Quartermain). In height of building ½ indicates accommodation within the roof, with either dormers, gables or raised eaves. Building materials are identified as: B = brick, B* = painted brick, P = pebbledash, R = render, St = stone, T = plain roof tile, PT = pantile, HT = hanging tile, S = roof slate, TF = timber frame, Ti – timber, F = flint Building Contribution is recorded as: SL2 = statutorily Listed grade 2, LL = locally listed, + = positive contribution to the area, neu = neutral contribution to the area, neg = negative contribution to the area. Age of

building Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

DORSET RD 2 (1994) B, HT, T 2 + 2A 1994 B, HT, T 2 + 2B (1994) B, HT, T 2 + 4 1924 B, R, T 2 + 6 1891/2 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 8 1891/2 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 10 1892/4 Q B, T 2 LL 12 1892/4 Q B, T 2 LL 14 1886/7 Q B, R, HT, T 2 LL 16 1960 B, HT, T 2 neu 18 1902 Q B, R, HT, T 2 LL 20 1903/4 Q B, P, HT, T 2 LL 22 1903/4 Q B, P, HT, T 2 LL 24 1903/4 B, TF, T 2 LL 26 1904 B, R, T 2 neu 28 1924 B, P, HT, T 2 + 1B/C 1884 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 ½ LL 1A (1985) B, T 2 neg 1 1884 Q B, HT, T 2 LL 3 1884 Q B, HT, T 2 LL 5 1884 Q B, HT, T 2 LL 7 1884 Q B, HT, T 2 LL 9/9A 1952 F B, HT, T 2 neu 11/11A 1952 F B, HT, T 2 neu 15 1871/2 M/Q B, HT, S 2 ½ + 17 1966 B, R, T 2 neg 21 1870s M/Q B, S 2 + 23 1870s M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 25 1870s M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 27 1870s M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 29 1870s M/Q B, HT, T 2 ½ + Age of Archi Building Buildg Buildg


46

35

building tect Materials height Contribn 31 1870s M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 33 1870s M/Q B, S 2 + 35 1904 N B, HT, T 2 LL 37 1904 N B, HT, T 2 LL 39 1905 (B) B, P, T 2 + 41 1905 (B) B, P, T 2 + 43 1905 (B) B, P, HT, T 2 + 45 1905 (B) P, T 2 neu 45A 1905 P, T 2 neu KINGSTON RD 146 1996 sQ B, HT, T 3 + 148 1884 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 152 Early 18C / later B, S 3 SL2 166 1886/7 Q B, HT, S 2 + 168 1886/7 Q B, HT, S 2 + 170 1886/7 Q St, S 2 + 172 1886/7 Q St, S 2 + 174 1886/7 Q St, S 2 + 176 Early 19C R, S 2 + 178 Early 19C R, S 2 + 180 1797 B, T 2 LL 180 (rear) 1990s B, T 2 + 182 (1870s) (M) B, S 2 + 184a (1975) B, S 2 ½ neu 184 1871/2 Q B, S 2 + 186 1871/2 Q B, S 2 + 188 1871/2 Q B, T 2 ½ + 190 1871/2 Q B, T 2 ½ + 192 1888 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 194 1887 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 196 1887 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 198 1887 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 200 (1887) Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL LANGLEY RD 2 (1932) B, TF, T 2 + 4 1932 B, TF, T 2 + 6 1932 B, TF, T 2 + 8 1932 B, TF, T 2 + 10 1934 B, HT, TF, T 2 neu 12 1956 P, B, T 2 neu Coach Ho. (1890) (Q) B, T 1 ½ + 14 1953 R, HT, T 1 neu 16 1873/4 Q B, S 2 LL 20-26 1959 B, T 2 neg Wykeham Lodge. (1959) B, PT 2 neg 1-7 1952 F B, HT, T 2 neu 9 (1948) B, T 2 neu 15 1967 B, PT 1 neu Garage at 15 (1905) (B) F, PT 1 + 17 1957 B, T 2 neu 19 1956 & later B, R, T 2 neg CHURCH LA 1a 1950 B, T 2 + 1 1950 B, T 2 ½ neg 3 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 4 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 5 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 6 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 7 1873/4 Q B, S 2 ½ + 8 1873/4) Q B, S 2 ½ + 9 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ +


47

36

Age of building

Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

10 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 ½ + 11 1906 B B, P, HT, T 2 LL 12 1906 B B, P, HT, T 2 LL 13 1904 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 14 1904 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 15 (1946) B, R, HT, T 2 + 16 1946 B, R, HT, T 2 + 17 1946 sQ B, R, HT, T 2 ½ + 18 1946 sQ B, R, HT, T 2 ½ + 19 1946 sQ B, P, HT, T 2 ½ + 20 1904 Q B, P, HT, T 2 ½ + 21 1904 Q B, P, HT, T 2 ½ + 22 1904 Q B, P, HT, T 2 + 23 1907 B B, T 2 LL 30 (R. Thornton Ho) (1870) A/W - Q* B, St, T, S 1½ - 2 LL 31-36 (consec) (1881) Q R, HT, T 1 ½ LL 37-46 (consec) 1892/4 Q R, HT, T 2 LL 47-55 (consec) 1908 B B, P, T 2 LL 56-61 (consec) (1881) Q P, HT, T 1 ½ LL 85 2003/4 B, T 1 ½ neu 2a (old building) 1885 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 2a (new building) 1984 B, S 3 neu 2 (surgery) 1963/1990s B, TF, S 2 neg 79 1970 B, HT, T 2 neu 78 1908 B B, PT 2 ½ + 77 1905 B B, P, TF, T 2 ½ + 76 1938 B, TF, T 2 ½ + 71 1922 (B) B, P, T 2 + 70 1922 (B) B, P, T 2 + Church Ho 1925 B, T, PT 2 LL SHERIDAN RD Ranmore (1955) B, HT, T 2 neu Oxton 1955 B, HT, T 2 neu 2 1907 B B, TF, T 2 LL 4 1907 B B, HT, T 2 LL 6 1922 (B) B, HT, T 2 ½ + 8 1922 (B) B, HT, T 2 ½ + 10 1922 (B) B, HT, T 2 ½ + 12 1922 (B) B, HT, T 2 ½ + 14 (1910) (B) B, HT, T 2 ½ + 16 1949 B, T 2 neu 18 1949 B, T 2 neu 20 1949 B, T 2 neu 28 1925 B, R, T 2 ½ neu 30 1923 (B) B, P, T 2 + 32 1923 (B) B, P, T 2 + 34 (1957) B, HT, R, T 2 neu 34a 1957 B, HT, R, T 2 neu 36 1884 Q R, TF, HT, T 2 LL 38 1924 B F, PT 2 LL 40 1924 B F, PT 2 LL 42 1922 P, T 2 + Orchard Ho (1-4) 1960 B, R, T 2 neu 1 1875 M B, HT, S 2 ½ LL 3 1882 Q B, HT, R, T 2 ½ LL 5 1970 B, HT, PT 2 neg 5a 1970 B, HT, PT 2 neg 7 1894 Q P, HT, TF, T 2 LL 7a 1966 B, Ti 1 neu 9 1882 Q B, HT, T 2 ½ LL 11 1882 Q R, HT, TF, T 2 LL


48

37

Age of building

Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

11a 1976 B, Ti, T 2 neg 13 1937 B, P, HT, T 2 neu 15 1937 B, P, HT, T 2 neu 17a 1890 Q B, HT, T 2 LL 17b 1985 B, T 2 + 17 1910 B B, T 2 ½ + 19 1926 B F, PT 2 ½ LL MELROSE RD 2 1907 B B, T 2 LL 4 1907 B B*, T 2 LL 6 1907 B B*, T 2 LL 8 1906 B B*, S 2 LL 10 1906 B B*, S 2 LL 12 1906 B R, S 2 LL 14 1906 B R, S 2 LL 16 1905 B B*, S 2 LL 18 1905 B B*, S 2 ½ LL 20 1905 B B*, S 2 LL 22 1908 B B, P, T 2 ½ LL 24 1908 B B, P, HT, T 2 LL 26 1908 B B, P, HT, T 2 LL 28 1910 B B, P, Ti, T 2 LL 30 1910 B B, P, Ti, T 2 LL 32 1920 (B) R, T 2 + 34 1920 (B) P, T 2 + Old School Clo 1984 B, S 2 + 1a (1891/2) Q B, T 1 LL 1 1892 Q R, P, HT, T 2 LL 3 1892 Q R, P, HT, T 2 LL 5 1892 Q R, P, HT, T 2 LL 7 1892 Q R, P, HT, T 2 LL 9 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 11 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 13 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 15 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 17 1925 B P, T 2 neu 21 1914 B B, HT, TF, T 2 + 23 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 25 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 27 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + 29 1913 B B, HT, T 2 + CHURCH PATH Church mediaeval & later Q*, B* P, F, St, T SL2* 3-5 (Vicarage) 1818 & later B, S 2 LL 7 1977 B, HT, T 2 neg 9 1977 B, HT, T 2 neg 11 1977 B, HT, T 2 neg Hall (1964) B, Ti 1 neg 15 (1810 – 20) B, S 2 LL 17 (1810 – 20) B, S 2 LL 19 (1810 – 20) B, S 2 LL 21 (1810 – 20) B, S 2 LL 23 (1810 – 20) B, S 2 LL 25 c 1700 R, T 2 LL 27 (Merton Cott) c 1770 & later R, B*, S 2 + 10 1923 B, PT 2 + 16 1984 B, PT 2 neu 18 1984 B, PT 2 neu 20 1984 B, PT 2 neu 22 1984 B, HT, PT 2 neu 24 1912 S B, HT, T 2 +


49

38

Age of building

Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

26 1912 S B, HT, T 2 + 28 1903 (Q) B, P, HT, T 2 LL 30 1903 (Q) B, P, HT, T 2 LL Roseville (1960) B, HT, T 1 neg Shrub Cott 1880 & later B, T 1 neg Montrose 1936 B, P, TF, T 2 + Dorquain 1937 B, P, HT, T 2 + Red Roof 1937 B, P, HT, T 2 + Dale Cott (1950 & later) B, HT, T 2 neu Stoneleigh 1924 B, HT, T 2 + Mostyn Cott 1924 B, HT, T 2 + Jalna (1930) B, T 2 neu MOSTYN RD 2 c 1874 Q B, St, S 2 LL 2b 1984 B, S 2 neu 4 Early 1870s M/Q B, S 2 + 4a Early 1870s M/Q B, S 2 + 6 Early 1870s (Q*) B, HT, S 2 – 2 ½ LL 8 1937 B, TF, R, T 2 + 10 1937 B, HT, R, T 2 + 12 1897 Q B, St, T 2 LL 14 1937 B, TF, T 2 + 16 1920 P, T 2 + 18 1920 P, T 2 + 20 1920 P, T 2 + 22 1920 P, T 2 + 24 1920 P, T 2 + 26 1920 P, T 2 + 28 1920 P, T 2 + 30 1920 P, T 2 neu 32 1880 Q P, HT, T 1 ½ LL 34 1880 Q P, HT, TF, T 1 ½ LL 36 1880 Q P, HT, TF, T 1 ½ LL 38 1880 Q P, HT, TF, T 1 ½ LL 40 1870 M/Q B, S 2 + 42 1870 M/Q B, S 2 + 44 1870 M/Q B, S 2 + 46 1870 M/Q B, S 2 + 48 1870 M/Q B, S 2 + 50 (1870) M/Q B, S 2 + 52 1895 Q B, P, HT, T 2 + 54 1912 S B, T 2 ½ LL 54a 1912 S B, T 2 ½ LL 56 1932 B, HT, T 2 neu 58 1924 B, P, TF, T 2 ½ + 60 1924 B, P, TF, T 2 ½ + 62a/b 1913 B, T 2 ½ + Coach House (1990) B, HT, S 1 ½ + 1 (1870) (M) B, S 2 LL 1a 1988 B, S 2 neg 3 1890 Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL 5 1882 Q P, HT, TF, T 2 LL 7 1875 Q B, St, S 2 LL 9 1926 & later P, T 2 + 11 1937 B, TF, T 2 + 15 (1890) (Q) R, HT, T 2 LL 17 1906 B P, B, T 2 ½ LL 19 1936 B, R, TF, T 2 + 21 1936 & later B, TF, T 2 neu 21a (Lodge) (1890) Q B, HT, T 1 LL 23 (Gardener’s Cott) (1890) Q B, HT, TF, T 2 LL


50

39

Age of building

Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

Pavilion (1950) TI, felt 1 neu Public Conv’s 1909 B TF, B, T 1 LL Bandstand 1909 B B, Ti, T 1 LL Brick Archway (1880) Q B - + 27 1911 B B, PT 2 ½ LL 29 1913 B B, PT 2 ½ LL 35 1922 B F, T 1 ½ SL2 37/39 1961 B, T 2 neg WATERY LANE 5 (1964) B, HT, T 2 neg 7 1964 B, HT, T 2 neg 9 1905 B B, T 2 + 11 1905 B B, T 2 + 13 1905 B B, P, S 2 + 15 (1905) B B, P, S 2 + 17 1907 B B, T 2 ½ + Manor House 1865 – 95 Q* B, St, HT, T 2 ½ SL2 School Bldg 1957 B, St, 3 neg 2 1908 B, HT, T 2 + 4 1900 B, HT, T 1 ½ + 6 1900 B, HT, T 1 ½ + 8 1899 Q B, P, T 2 LL 10 1885 – 90 Q P, TF, HT, T 1 ½ LL 12 1885 – 90 Q P, HT, T 2 LL 14 1885 – 90 Q B, T 2 LL 14a 1959 R, B, HT, T 2 neg 14b 1959 R, B, HT, T 2 neg 16 1906 B, P, T 2 + 18 1906 B, P, T 2 + 20 1906 B, P, T 2 + 22 1906 B, P, T 2 + 24 1906 B, P, T 2 + 26 1906 B, P, T 2 + 28 1906 B, P, T 2 + 30 1906 B, P, T 2 + 32 1906 B, R, HT, T 2 + 34 1906 B, P, T 2 + 36 1906 B, P, HT, T 2 + 38 1895 (alteratns) Q* B, T 1 ½ LL 40 1895 (alteratns) Q* B, T 1 ½ LL 42 1895 (alteratns) Q* B, HT, T 1 ½ LL 44 1895 (alteratns) Q* B, HT, T 1 ½ LL 46 1895 (alteratns) Q* B, HT, T 1 ½ LL 48 1960 B, T 2 neu MANOR GARDENS 1 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 3 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 5 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 7 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 9 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 11 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 13 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 15 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 17 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 19 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 21 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 23 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 25 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 27 1908 B, HT, P, T 2 + 2 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 4 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 +


51

40

Age of building

Archi tect

Building Materials

Buildg height

Buildg Contribn

6 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 8 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 10 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 12 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 14 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 16 1907 B, HT, P, T 2 + 18 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + 20 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + 22 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + 24 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + 26 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + 28 1911 B, HT, P, T 2 + ERRIDGE RD MP Primary School (1910) B, T 1 +


52

41

APPENDIX 2 - Building alterations. The table below sets out where alterations that may be seen from the public street have occurred. These changes include replacement of external doors, enclosure or erection of porches, replacement of window frames or roofing materials, extensions to the building, application of cladding or painting of brickwork, or the introduction of car parking or front driveways within the frontage areas. Door Porch Windows Roof Extn. Paint

Bricks. Cladding.

Parking.

DORSET RD 2 * * 2A * 2B * 4 * * 6 * 8 * 10 * * 12 * 14 * 16 * 18 * * 20 * 22 * 24 * 26 * * * 28 * 1B/C * 1A * 1 * 3 * * 5 * 7 9/9A 11/11A 15 * 17 * 21 * * 23 * 25 * 27 * * 29 * * 31 * 33 * * * 35 37 * 39 * 41 * * * * 43 * * 45 * * * * 45A * * * * KINGSTON RD 146 148 152 * 166 * * * * 168 * * 170 * * 172 174 * 176 * * 178 * 180


53

42

Door Porch Windows Roof Extn. Paint Bricks.

Cladding.

Parking.

180 (rear) * 182 184a 184 * 186 * 188 * * * 190 * * 192 * 194 * 196 * 198 * * 200 LANGLEY RD 2 * * * 4 * * 6 * * * 8 * * 10 * * * 12 * Coach Ho. * * * 14 16 * * 20-26 Wycombe Lodge. * 1-7 * * * * 9 15 Garage at 15 17 * * * 19 * * * CHURCH LA 1a 1 * * 3 * * 4 * * 5 * * * 6 * 7 * * 8 * * 9 * * 10 * 11 12 * 13 * * 14 * 15 16 * * 17 * * * * 18 * * * 19 * * 20 * * 21 * * * 22 * * 23 * 30 (R. Thornton Ho) 31 32 * 33 34 35 36 * 37 *


54

43


Cladding.

Parking.

38 39 * * 40 * * 41 42 * 43 * * 44 * 45 * 46 * * 47 * 48 * * 49 * * * 50 * * 51 * * 52 * 53 * 54 * * 55 * * 56 57 58 59 * 60 * 61 * 85 * 2a (old building) 2a (new building) * 2 (surgery) * * 79 * 78 * 77 * 76 * * 71 * 70 * * * Church Ho * SHERIDAN RD Ranmore * * Oxton * * * * 2 * 4 * * * 6 * * * * 8 * * * 10 * * 12 * * 14 * 16 * * 18 * 20 * * 28 * * * * 30 * 32 * 34 * * 34a * 36 * 38 * * * 40 * 42 * * Orchard Ho (1-2) * * Orchard Ho (3-4) * * 1 * 3 * 5 * * *


55

44


Cladding.

Parking.

5a * 7 * * 7a * 9 * 11 * 11a * 13 * * 15 * * * 17a * * 17b * 17 * 19 * * * * * MELROSE RD 2 * 4 * * 6 * 8 10 12 14 16 * 18 * 20 * * 22 24 * 26 * * 28 * * 30 * 32 34 * Old School Clo 1a * 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 * * * 17 * * * * * 21 * * 23 * * 25 * * 27 29 * * * CHURCH PATH Church 3-5 (Vicarage) * 7 * 9 * 11 * Hall 15 17 * 19 * 21 * 23 * 25 * 27 (Merton Cott) * * 10 * 16 *


56

45


Cladding.

Parking.

18 * 20 * 22 * 24 26 * 28 30 Roseville * * Shrub Cott * Montrose * * Dorquain * * Red Roof * * Dale Cott * Stoneleigh * Mostyn Cott * Jalna * * MOSTYN RD 2 * 2b * 4 * 4a * * 6 * * 8 * 10 * * 12 * 14 * * * 16 * 18 * * 20 * 22 * * 24 * 26 * 28 * 30 * * * * 32 * 34 * 36 * 38 * 40 * * 42 * * 44 * * 46 48 50 * 52 * * 54 * 54a * 56 * * 58 * 60 * * 62a/b * * Coach House * 1 * 1a * 3 * 5 * 7 * * 9 11 * 15 *


57

46


Cladding.

Parking.

17 * 19 * * 21 * * * 21a (Lodge) * 23 (Gardener’s Cott) Pavilion Public Conv’s Bandstand Brick Archway 27 * 29 * * 35 * 37/39 * WATERY LANE 5 * * 7 * 9 * 11 * 13 * * 15 * * 17 * Manor House * School Bldg 2 * 4 * 6 * 8 10 12 14 * 14a * 14b * 16 * * 18 * * * 20 * * 22 * * 24 * * * 26 * * * 28 30 32 * * * 34 * * 36 * * * 38 * 40 * 42 * 44 * 46 48 * MANOR GARDENS 1 * * 3 5 * 7 * 9 * 11 * 13 * * 15 * * 17 19 21 23


58

47


Cladding.

Parking.

25 * 27 * 2 * 4 * * 6 * 8 10 12 * * * 14 16 18 * * 20 * * 22 * * 24 * * 26 * * 28 * * * ERRIDGE RD MP Primary School * * * *


59

48

APPENDIX 3 – Street Design. This appendix indicates the materials used in the streets in the Conservation Area. Streets are mainly divided into different sections, defined by the junctions of side roads. Key to notations FOOTWAYS – ASP paving slabs ASP – ASP paving slabs

B – Bitmac VERGES G – Grass

B – Bitmac KERBS NG – Narrow granite

NC – Narrow concrete BG – Broad granite

GULLY S – Granite setts CROSSOVERS B – Bitmac

C - Concrete STREET TREES Y – presence of street trees TRAFFIC CALMING C – Speed cushions

T – Speed table B – speed bump

DEFINED PARKING BAYS C – parking bays within carriageway C/F – parking bays part on footway/verge

YELLOW LINES B – Broad yellow lines N – narrow yellow lines

# - see notes in section 21 Mostyn Rd (N) North of Sheridan Rd Mostyn Rd (M) Between Sheridan Rd and Church Path Mostyn Rd (S) South of Church path Watery La (N) North of Manor Gardens Watery La (S) South of Manor Gardens Sheridan Rd (W) West of Mostyn Rd Sheridan Rd (M) Between Mostyn Rd and Church Lane Sheridan Rd (E) East of Church Lane Kingston Rd (W) West of Mostyn Rd Kingston Rd (M) Between Mostyn Rd and Church Lane Kingston Rd (E) East of Church Lane Dorset Rd (N) North of Langley Rd Dorset Rd (M) Between Langley Rd and Sheridan Rd Dorset Rd (S) South of Sheridan Rd Langley Rd (E) East of Church Lane Langley Rd (W) West of Church Lane Church Lane (N) Between Langley Rd and Kingston Rd Church Lane (CN) Between Langley Rd and Sheridan Rd Church Lane (CS) Between Sheridan Rd and Melrose Rd Church Lane (S) South of Melrose Rd Church Lane (E) Eastern extension (nos. 37 – 55) Church Path (E) Between Mostyn Rd and Church Lane Church Path (W) Between Mostyn Rd and Watery Lane Melrose Rd (E) Between Dorset Rd and Poplar Rd Melrose Rd (W) Between Poplar Rd and Church Lane Erridge Rd Manor Gardens


60

49

foot way

verge kerb gully crossover

trees traff calm

park bays

yellw lines

Mostyn Rd (N) ASP G NG B/C Y C C N Mostyn Rd (M) ASP G NG B/C Y C C N Mostyn Rd (S) ASP G NG B/C Y C/T C N Watery La (N) B NC B B Watery La (S) ASP/

B NC B B

Sheridan Rd (W) B G NG B Y N Sheridan Rd (M) B G NG B Y B N Sheridan Rd (E) B G NG B Y B N Kingston Rd (W) B NC B B Kingston Rd (M) B BG/

NC B B

Kingston Rd (E) B NG B B Dorset Rd (N) ASP B NG B Y C C B/N Dorset Rd (M) ASP B NG B Y C C N Dorset Rd (S) ASP B NG B Y C C N Langley Rd (E) ASP G NG S B Y C N Wykeham Ho B C C N Langley Rd (W) # G # B Y Church Lane (N) B G NG/

NC B Y B C N

Church Lane (CN) B G NG/ NC

B Y B C N

Church Lane (CS) B NG/ NC

B Y B C N

Church Lane (S) ASP/B

B NG S Y C N

Church Lane (E) # # # Church Path (E) # # # C N Church Path (W) B NC N Melrose Rd (E) ASP B NG B C N Melrose Rd (W) ASP B NG B C/F N Erridge Rd ASP G/B NG S Y C Manor Gardens ASP B NG B Y C B


61

50

APPENDIX 5 – Photographs. This appendix uses photographs to illustrate characteristic architectural details used in the buildings of the Garden Suburb. Such details may be seen on many of the buildings in the area of this period. These photos were taken in July/Aug/Sept 2005. Details typical of “Domestic Revival” architecture (mainly Quartermain). 2325 – Steeply pitched gabled porch supported on timber brackets. (5 Melrose Rd). 2331 – Gabled porch containing paired front doors, six panelled doors with glass in 2 upper panels, ornate timber bargeboards to the gable, and ornate bands of square and round ended hanging tiles within the gable, and at the jettied projecting bay. (39-40 Church Lane). 2330 – Bands of round and square hanging tiles at 1st floor, generous overhang to the roof gable, dog tooth ridge tiles, timber sliding sash windows. (31 Church Lane). 2354 – Jettied square bay supported on sinuous timber brackets, ornate hanging tiles mixing square and round ended tiles in diamond arrangement, sliding timber sash windows, ornate timber bargeboards to the gable, inverted finial, ornate ridge tiles. (15 Mostyn Rd). 2334 – Windows breaking the eaves line, half dormer windows, ornate hanging tiles, ornate timber bargeboards, substantial brick chimneys, timber sash windows. (56-57 Church Lane). 2337 – Typical “black and white” timber frame and render panels, round headed dormer window with canted sides, leaded and coloured glass. (14 Church Lane). 2338 – Port hole window with brick detailing surround (“keystone” bricks to each side), timber porch. (14 Church Lane) 2353 – Polychrome red/blue brickwork in diamond pattern, stone quoin details to bay windows, sills and lintels, stone arch and pillar to porch, sliding timber framed sash windows, moulded brick stringcourse at 1st floor leve, band of round ended tiles on bay roof. (12 Mostyn Rd). 2352 – Substantial chimney with brick detailing at the top, gabled dormer window with generous roof overhang. (12 Mostyn Rd). 2495 – Polychromatic red/blue bricks in diamond pattern, timber framed sash windows, ornate timber parapet to balcony. (12 Mostyn Rd) 2351 – Tall narrow gabled oriel window with panelled base, part leaded glass window, hanging tiles set within the gable, ornate timber bargeboards. (12 Mostyn Rd). 2350 – Timber finial at gable, ornate ridge tiles. (11 Sheridan Rd). 2349 – Ornate diagonal timber detailing to balcony balustrade, tall angled and paired brick chimneys, red brick quoins. (9 Sheridan Rd). 2497 – Gabled porch with timber frame front, arcade at the top and below infilled with leaded glass windows, in the door “art nouveau” leaded and coloured glass panels, casement window above, with small panes, hanging tiles above with squared dog-tooth ends. (7 Sheridan Rd). 2496 – Ornate timber frame using curved diamond pattern, ornate hanging tiles and timber bargeboards at the gable, sliding sash window, finely cut ridge tiles. (7 Sheridan Rd)


62

51

2347 – 2 storey bay with lower part and gable in ornate hanging tiles, and 1st floor level in ornate diamond pattern “black and white” timber frame, ornate ridge tiles and ornate bargeboards. (7 Sheridan Rd). 2345 – Oriel window with timber framed sash window frames, round ended hanging tiles within the gable, generous gable overhang, moulded bricks used in the string course at 1st floor level, brick quoins and good brick detailing on the chimney. (3 Sheridan Rd). 2343 – Stone tablet with date. (1 Sheridan Rd). 2342 – Timber balustrades to 1st floor balcony, and ornate timberwork to 2nd floor “Juliette” balcony, red brick string courses and segmental arches over windows, ornately cut bargeboarding, intricate glazing bar design for upper part of main window, terracotta finial on the gable, and slate roof with ornate ridge tiles. (1 Sheridan Rd). 2340 – Heavy timber and metal gate. (12 Church Lane). 2486 – Moulded brickwork used at the gable roof edge and at the base of the gable, ornate hanging tiles, ridge tiles and roof tiles, and small 4 pane window. (7 Melrose Rd). 2487 – Moulded brickwork used at the gable roof edge and at the base of the gable, ornate hanging tiles, finely detailed timberwork on the balcony balustrade, leaded and coloured glass. (52 Mostyn Rd) 2488 – Moulded brickwork at the porch arch, and rounded bricks used for the full porch opening, traditional panelled timber front door and door frame, with leaded and coloured glass. (52 Mostyn Rd) 2491 – Moulded bricks at the roof edge of the gable, chequerboard pattern of bricks and terracotta tablets set within the gable, moulded brickwork used for classical portico surround for central panel, finely detailed timberwork to the upper edge of bay window and lead roof. (21a Mostyn Rd) 2492 – Timber finial on steeply pitched gabled roof, ornate hanging tiles, and timber bargeboards. (17a Sheridan Rd) Details typical of “Arts and Crafts” architecture (mainly Brocklesby). 2339 – Plain and strong brickwork detailing to round arch over recessed porch, use of alternating projecting brick, and brick polychromy in string course above (characteristic of much detailing by Brocklesby). (12 Church Lane). 2335 – Semi circular window, alternating red and brown bricks to the arch over and the sill beneath, outward sweep to the roof line. (23 Church Lane). 2341 – Plain round “porthole” window with radiating tile edging around. (11 Church Lane) 2346 – Timber casement windows (characteristic of the window frames used by Brocklesby), note brick and tile detailing to sill below, and flat arch above. (14 Sheridan Rd). 2336 – Later style of windows by Brocklesby, dentil detailing above the bay window. (70 Church Lane). 2355 – Strong horizontal emphasis to casement window opening, squared leaded glass, segmental arch above with characteristic Brocklesby detailing in brick to window surround, wide eaves overhang. (17 Mostyn Rd). 2328 – Wide timber casement windows, with typical Brocklesby brick and tile detailing to sills and lintels, segmental arch in tile above ground floor window. (4 Melrose Rd).


63

52

2329 – Bay window angled across the corner of building, brick quoins, brick angled buttress. (14 Melrose Rd). 2356 – Flat roofed dormer windows (characteristic of Brocklesby’s work), leaded glass, tall brick chimney with characteristic brick detailing at the top. (17 Mostyn Rd). 2326 – Brick and tile detailing to the chimney top, hip tiles used on the top of projecting party wall. (2 Melrose Rd). 2357 – Unusual Palladian window with typical Brocklesby brick surround, plain timber balustrade around balcony. (17 Mostyn Rd). 2319 – Gabled Brocklesby porch supported on ornate timber brackets. (13 Melrose Rd). 2323 – Similar flat-roofed porch, rounded headed door opening with semi circular fanlight above, hanging tiles to bay window have square ended tiles but with a horizontal band of round ended tiles . (11 Melrose Rd). 2321 – Polychromatic brickwork by Brocklesby, leaded “art nouveau” coloured glass, typical brick and tile sill and lintel. (22 Melrose Rd). 2320 – Use of rough pebbledash wall finishes, gables with and without bargeboards, outward sweep to roof slope. (22 Melrose Rd). 2485 – Polychromatic red/grey/brown bricks, horizontal 3-course red brick banding, leaded “art nouveau” glazing, brick and tile detailing to window sill, alternating brick colour to window lintel, (22 Melrose Rd). 2324 – Low pitched roof slope, use of slate and red hip tiles, typical Brocklesby brick detailing to the eaves. (16 Melrose Rd). 2333 – Use of brick corbels at party walls, typical brick sill and lintel detailing. (51 Church Lane). 2327 – Shallow projection to canted bay, red brick quoins, polychromatic brick walls, angled brick buttress. (2 Melrose Rd). 2489 – Dutch gable with brick and tile detailing, date of building picked out in red brick, projecting brickwork detailing to window sills, lintels and architraves, metal window frames, brick corbel support for the gable on the left, tall slim chimney with projecting vertical line of bricks, orange/red pantiles on the roof. (29 Mostyn Rd) 2490 – “Crowstep” gable with brick and tile detailing, moulded bricks for window mullions, sloping brick window sill, brick and tile lintel, metal window frames, pantiled roof. (27 Mostyn Rd) 2493 – Random pattern flint walls, with red brick string courses combined with cement banding within the gable, orange/red pantiles on the roof, window frames not original. (19 Sheridan Rd) 2494 – Very steeply pitched roof, with tall chimney projecting from the wall with brickwork detailing at the top, strongly expressed asymmetrical gable with robust plain timber bargeboard, small windows with typical Brocklesby brick detailing to sills and lintels, and small flat-roofed dormer windows (17 Watery Lane) 2498 – Strong rustic timber frame and bargeboards within the gable, small attic type windows within the gable, ornate timber brackets at base of gable, horizontal emphasis to 1st floor casement window, each unit divided into 6 panes, plain clay tiles and semi circle hip tiles on the roof. (77 Church Lane)


64

53

2499 – Round “port hole” window subdivided into small square panes, dentilled brickwork detailing at 1st floor level, ornate timber bracket supports for the porch roof, and projecting blue brick plinth, (77 Church Lane) 2501 – Canted bay window with 9 pane sash windows and profiled timber above, flat roof to bay and porch with timber bracket support, projecting plinth with blue bricks, red bricks used for quoin effect. (77 Church Lane) 2500 – Very unusual, and more contemporary overall design for Brocklesby. Deep parapet with openings filled with decorative hip tiles. Strong horizontal lines created by the wide porch roof and the parapet. Steeply pitched roof, typical Brocklesby window detailing (frames, sills and lintels) and brickwork detailing to the chimney, typical Brocklesby brickwork dentil detailing at the base of the gable, pantiled roof. (78 Church Lane)


65

54


66

APPENDIX 4

Sustainability Appraisal Statement for Character Appraisal of John Innes (Merton Park) Conservation Area

Introduction This statement sets out the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal into the character appraisal and boundary assessment for the above Conservation Area. A character appraisal is a document that looks in detail at the special character of a Conservation Area accurately describing the areas history, layout, land use, building form, architecture and urban space. It then goes onto recommend the positive and negative features and any suggested opportunities and recommendations within the Conservation Area. The boundary assessment is a separate document that looks specifically at changes to the boundary of the Conservation Area. It should be noted that the boundary assessment precedes the character appraisal and takes its recommendations into account. The need to review and monitor the boundaries of the existing Conservation Areas through the preparation of Character Assessments is recognised in paragraph 4.28 of the Merton’s Unitary Development Plan. And in paragraph 4.38 it sets out that these character assessments are to be published as Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG or, since the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act a Supplementary Planning Document. Background The Government has recently made changes to the planning system through the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. The new Regulations require that any document that needs to be termed a Supplementary Planning Document SPD has to undergo a Sustainability Appraisal, including character appraisal of Conservation Areas so that it can be a material consideration in any decision relating to development in the Conservation Area. Sustainability and sustainable development has become a key issue for government and is reflected in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy and its five key aims. These are living within environmental limits, ensuring a strong healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly. There is a growing wealth of guidance being produced for planning which increasingly incorporates these issues. This appraisal has been produced in accordance with the guidance ‘Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks’. The appraisals level of detail has been applied in accordance with the spatial scale, size and possible environmental effects of the designation. Scope of the appraisal To undertake scoping for a sustainability appraisal the document to be appraised needs to have strategic aims and objectives. In the case of a character assessment this is not possible as the main strategic objective of this type of document will be the same as the objective of the policy its based on, ie to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area. And this appraisal should not be looking at the policy as this will be the focus of an appraisal of the relevant Development Plan Document when this is undertaken. It should also be pointed out that the Character Assessment does not have any significant land use proposals for redevelopment nor does it include a major programme of enhancement therefore making it hard to come up with various options. However, to be in compliance with the Regulations and the SEA Directive it is necessary to follow the process set out in ODPM guidance. Therefore it is necessary to consider options and environmental impacts. Environmental impacts are likely to be minimal as a Conservation Area is protectionist in nature. The only suitable alternative to carrying out the appraisal is the “do nothing” option of not doing the character appraisal at all. This option would not be acceptable because the council has a statutory requirement to undertake a character appraisal. Any changes to the boundary of the conservation area will be appraised as well as any opportunities or actions that maybe recommended by the character assessment. The factual detail and description of the conservation area, which is the bulk of the document, is irrelevant to this process.


67

Description of the conservation area The conservation area which is one the larger conservation areas in the borough at 31.63 hectares. It is situated approximately 1 kilometre to the south of Wimbledon Town Centre, and approximately 1.2 kilometres to the north-west of Morden Town Centre. It is bounded by two other conservation areas to the north and west. It is designation incorporates the southern part of the mediaeval village of Merton along Kingston Road. Located within it is the parish church where a church has stood since 1115. The railway forms the eastern boundary of the conservation area. The bulk of the conservation area was constructed during phases starting in the 1870s through to the early 1900s. Most of the development was completed by the 1930s and could be termed a “garden suburb”. Whilst the area is predominantly residential dwellings of two storey’s there are a number of playing fields and schools. One important feature is the use of holly hedges throughout the area which adds the rustic and semi rural character of the area. There are two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) defined within the Conservation Area. They are at the Playing Field in Church Lane and the churchyard and Glebe Field. Both of these sites are defined as sites of local importance. There are eight statutorily listed buildings within the area including the Grade II* listed Church of St Mary and 139 locally listed buildings. There is a great deal of architectural similarity between the buildings in the conservation area and can be most likened to ‘domestic revival’ and ‘arts and crafts’ styles. Most of the conservation area lies within an Archaeological Priority Zone. There are existing Article 4 directions for certain parts of the area that prevent changes in windows and doors, any alteration/enlargement of the dwelling houses and any alterations to fences, gates and boundary features. Boundary Changes There are proposed boundary changes as follows:

• The addition of all properties in Manor Gardens. • The deletion of 62 Mostyn Rd • The deletion of all properties in Stratton Close • The deletion of the Merton Park Primary School, Erridge Rd • The deletion of 2a/2b Poplar Rd

Actions

• Dead street trees within the Conservation Area should be removed and replaced. The poor quality holly tree within the grass “island” in the footway close to the Kingston Rd/Church Lane junction should also be removed and replaced with new tree planting. The stunted cherry trees in Mostyn Rd should be replaced with new street trees of a more suitable species, (possibly horse chestnuts.

• Redundant crossovers (in Mostyn Rd) should be removed and the footway and grass verges reinstated.

• In conjunction with street repairs, re-introduce rows of granite gully setts where they are currently absent.

• Article 4 Directions should be sought to protect the holly hedges within property frontages within parts of the Conservation Area. This would involve the withdrawal of permitted development rights in respect of construction of vehicle hard standings and the creation of vehicle accesses.

• Article 4 Directions should be sought to protect the small-scale alterations on the houses within the Conservation Area, including replacement of front doors, infilling of porches, painting of masonry and replacement of windows on the front elevation of buildings.

• Prepare a design brief for the sensitive development of the existing car park site at Church Path, with particular regard to the improvement of definition of the street frontage, footpath connection to Erridge Rd, and views of the Glebe Field.

• If in the future, the possibility of redevelopment of the Wykeham Lodge site were to be envisaged, then a design brief for the sensitive development of the site should be undertaken,


68

with a view to securing an improvement of definition of the street frontage, the design of the frontage space, and the positioning, design and materials to be used for any new buildings.

• The 100 mm wide yellow parking control lines should be amended to the narrower 50 mm. width, so as to reduce their intrusive appearance.

• The re-introduction of the distinctive gates and gate posts (as seen at 12 Church Lane) should be encouraged in conjunction with planning applications for development.

• Tree Preservation Orders shall be considered for all significant trees and tree groups, which are placed at risk of removal as part of any tree works in a conservation area.

The Sustainability Framework The basis for the appraisal is the development of a Sustainability Framework. This is a draft set of objectives developed by the council that cover the sustainability issues for the borough. These objectives are developed through assessment of the objectives of various other documents from European Directives to the Mayors London Plan (Spatial Strategy) through to other council policy documents such as Merton’s Environmental Action Plan. The baseline of environmental information is also taken into consideration when setting out the sustainability objectives. Many of the sustainability objectives are not relevant to the opportunities and proposed actions of the character appraisal but have been included anyway for completeness sake. Instead of tabulating the results a comments column has been included that aims to summarise the various types of positive and negative effects.

Topic Objective Comments

Land-Use − Increase the use of urban brown field land This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Minerals and soils

− Where possible maintain and enhance soil quality This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Waste − Reduce the amount of waste generated,

maximise reuse, recycling and recovery and reduce our reliance on landfill disposal

This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Carbon Reduction and

Energy

− Ensure specific measures to improve carbon efficiency are used in new developments, refurbishment and/or renovations and extensions.

Any future redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge may need to consider the use of renewable energy equipment.

Pollution − Ensure the risks of pollution to human

health and all areas of the boroughs environment are reduced

This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Biodiversity and the Natural

Environment

− Further protect existing designated sites through the use of S106 agreements

Many of the actions will help to protect the existing biodiversity of the area for instance replacing dead trees and protecting existing holly hedges with Article 4 directions.

the Built Environment

and its heritage − Encourage sustainably built development

Any future redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge would need to be carried out sustainably. Two sub objectives for this objective should also be considered. The first states that the boroughs heritage will be protected and enhanced. The additional protection suggested for the buildings through use of an article 4 direction would add to this. If the area were to be undesignated then there would be less chance to protect these buildings from demolition.

Basic Needs − Increase the number of appropriate

affordable housing units in Merton to reflect increases in demand

Any future redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge would need to contribute towards affordable housing.


69

Work and the economy − Maintain local employment capacity

This is not relevant for this appraisal as no there are no proposals that affect the employment sites in the Conservation Area.

Health − Improve health equality This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Transport and access − The need for travel is minimised

This is not relevant for this appraisal as no actions to reduce parking provision are proposed .

Crime − Reduce the level of street crime Any future redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge would need to consider design issues that may help reduce street crime.

Education − Increase educational attainment of the

boroughs residents This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Equity and Participation

− Poverty is reduced This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Cultural, leisure and social activities

− Improve the access to and quality of open spaces This is not relevant for this appraisal.

Conclusions There are no actions highlighted in the above table that would have a negative effect in sustainability terms. There would be a number of minor beneficial actions that would help protect the heritage of the area and maintain its biodiversity like an Article 4 direction to protect the existing holly hedges. Any redevelopment of Wykeham Lodge would need to take into consideration guidance for sustainable construction. This would be provided in a development brief. Mike Carless


70

APPENDIX 5

ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE JOHN INNES (MERTON PARK) CONSERVATION AREA. (including Addendum) At designation in 1968, the Conservation Area included the following properties:

• 148 – 200 (evens) Kingston Rd • 1 – 45 (odds) Dorset Rd • 2 – 28 (evens) Dorset Rd • all properties in Langley Rd • all properties in Sheridan Rd • all properties in Melrose Rd • all properties in Church Lane • All properties in Church Path • 2a and 2b Poplar Rd • Merton Park Primary School Erridge Rd • All properties in Stratton Close • 1 – 37 (odds) Mostyn Rd • 2 – 62 (evens) Mostyn Rd • all properties in Watery Lane

In November 1990 the Conservation Area was extended to include the Recreation Ground adjacent to Cannon Hill Lane and Manor Rd. No further boundary changes were made to the Conservation Area between that date and the start of work on the Character Appraisal for the Conservation Area. Assessment of properties within the existing Conservation Area boundary In considering the case for retaining properties in the Conservation Area the assessment is made on a street-by-street basis. Kingston Rd The buildings which lie inside the Conservation Area boundary in Kingston Rd are of an almost uniformly high standard from an architectural point of view. The character of these buildings is entirely in keeping with the broader “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. The generous planting of garden frontages along Kingston Rd further strengthens the case for inclusion of these properties within the Conservation Area, reinforcing the “garden suburb” character. Kingston Rd forms the northern boundary of the Conservation Area. The boundary runs along the centre of the road. To the north of Kingston Rd the area is designated as the John Innes (Wilton Crescent) Conservation Area. The Merton Park area has many common associations with the Wilton Crescent Conservation Area. A recently completed Character Appraisal which has been carried out for the Wilton Crescent Conservation Area, has concluded that the southern boundary for that Conservation Area should essentially extend up to Kingston Rd. To delete any part of Kingston Rd from the Merton Park Conservation Area would therefore introduce a separation in terms of Conservation Area protection between the 2 related areas, which would be undesirable. Kingston Rd itself is a very heavily trafficked arterial road, whose ambience is adversely affected by traffic noise and fumes. It is however a very old road, originally


71

a country lane, and the spine of the rather strung out mediaeval village of Merton. Other vestiges of the mediaeval village lie to the south, within the Merton Park Conservation Area. The character of the original country lane can (with some imagination) still be discerned in today’s traffic choked artery. Kingston Rd has a rather charming informal alignment, meandering like a stream, at one point widening out, and then narrowing noticeably. Many mature trees line the road within the adjacent front garden areas. The traffic engineer has not had the opportunity to straighten the alignment, or to form perfect radii for the curves of the road. This very informal character provides a further basis for keeping the area within the Conservation Area. Finally there are 2 Statutorily Listed buildings within the Merton Park Conservation Area boundary (Dorset Hall and a “K6” type telephone box). Both are listed Grade II, and both benefit from the protection that the Conservation Area affords. Taking all of these considerations into account the case for retaining Kingston Rd within the Conservation Area is overwhelming, and therefore no reduction in the Conservation Area is proposed in this area. Dorset Rd As with Kingston Rd, in Dorset Rd buildings which lie inside the Conservation Area boundary are of a generally high standard from an architectural point of view. The character of these buildings is entirely in keeping with the broader “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. Again generous planting of garden frontages and very impressive mature street trees, further strengthen the case for inclusion of these properties within the Conservation Area, reinforcing the “garden suburb” character. In the southern part of Dorset Rd the Conservation Area boundary runs along the centre line of the road, with houses on the west side being within the Conservation Area. This boundary position subdivides the enclosed public space (the street), which is not an ideal arrangement from the point of view of protection of the special character of the area. However this consideration provides no basis for exclusion of any properties at the southern end of Dorset Rd from the Conservation Area. The merits of including properties on the eastern side of the road are considered in the section dealing with properties outwith the Conservation Area. It is therefore concluded that no Dorset Rd properties currently within the Conservation Area should be excluded from the area. Langley Rd Langley Rd lies wholly within the central part of the Conservation Area. Therefore to delete any part of it from the Conservation Area would be to introduce an “island” surrounded by designated Conservation Area. This in itself would be undesirable. It is true that the great majority of the buildings in Langley Rd do not have the very high architectural qualities that are seen throughout most of the Conservation Area, but the general landscape character of Langley Rd is in accordance with the character of the wider area. It is concluded that no properties in Langley Rd should be excluded from the Conservation Area.


72

Sheridan Rd The case for retaining properties in Sheridan Rd within the Conservation Area boundary is much the same as that for the properties in Dorset Rd. Many buildings are of a high standard from an architectural point of view. The character of these buildings is entirely in keeping with the broader “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. Sheridan Rd is particularly notable for the very generous planting of garden frontages, and for its magnificent street trees. These features further strengthen the case for inclusion of these properties within the Conservation Area, reinforcing the “garden suburb” character. All but the western end of Sheridan Rd lies within the heart of the Merton Park Conservation Area, and the western part of the road adjoins another Conservation Area (Merton Hall Rd Conservation Area). If therefore, properties here were to be excluded then (as with Langley Rd), an “island” of non-Conservation Area would be introduced. It is therefore concluded that no Sheridan Rd properties currently within the Conservation Area should be excluded from the area. Melrose Rd Melrose Rd contains a concentration of some of the finest Arts and Crafts buildings that are to be found either within the Conservation Area or in the Borough generally. Other buildings in the street maintain a high overall architectural standard. The landscape quality and general planting in this part of the Conservation Area is entirely in sympathy with the “garden suburb” character of the wider area. At the western end of Melrose Rd there is the attractive former village school building, which serves as a reminder of the village origins of Merton Park. This provides a strong feature which reinforces the argument to retain the street within the Conservation Area. It is therefore concluded that no Melrose Rd properties currently within the Conservation Area should be excluded from the area. Church Lane Church Lane is one of the original streets of the mediaeval village of Merton. It linked the Church to Kingston Rd. It overlays “garden suburb” characteristics on the remnants of the earlier village. From this point of view it is one of the most important streets in the Conservation Area. The older village associations are today evident in the old church and churchyard, the 16th/17th century wall surrounding the present day playing field, the old village school building, and the twisting alignment at the northern end of the road. The “garden suburb” buildings in Church Lane are generally of a high architectural quality, and the planting and landscape qualities are, as with most other streets in the area, a clear asset to the wider character. At the southern end of the street there is a small cluster of smaller cottages which also relate to the development of the area as a “garden suburb”. This group of buildings are both architecturally attractive in themselves, and they have a strong group value.


73

It is therefore firmly concluded that no properties in Church Lane should be excluded from the Conservation Area. Church Path The eastern part of Church Path seems today to represent the heart of the old pre-suburban village of Merton. There are many present day survivals from this era, including the church, the remains of a reconstructed arch from the ancient Merton Priory, the vicarage, cottages at 15 – 25 Church Path, the 16th/17th century wall surrounding the present day playing field, the twisting alignment of the street itself, the way that parts of the Path are enclosed by high walls, and the elongated green “island” at the eastern end. In fact the whole length of the Path (between Watery Lane and Church Lane) is one of the original streets in the mediaeval village. In Church Path to the west of Mostyn Rd, the organic mediaeval village structure has been lost, though the area remains a quiet backwater with major planting, including planting in John Innes Park on its south side. The character of this street as a whole is very unusual and highly distinctive. Its character contrasts clearly with that of streets in the wider area. It contains some buildings of considerable architectural value, and it has considerable appeal from the point of view of planting and landscape value. It is therefore strongly recommended that the whole street should remain within the Conservation Area. Poplar Rd The only property in Poplar Rd that lies within the Conservation Area boundary is at 2a/2b Poplar Rd. This is a small scale 2 storey detached building of the 1960s. Its general design is wholly out of keeping with the general character of buildings in the Conservation Area as a whole. It uses a mixture of materials which are in no way typical of the Conservation Area buildings. It has a flat roofed double garage to one side. It is located on the edge of the Conservation Area, and so excluding it would not create overly contorted boundaries for the Conservation Area. A very clear conclusion is drawn that the property should be excluded from the Conservation Area. Erridge Rd The only property in Erridge Rd that lies within the Conservation Area boundary is the Merton Park Primary School. The school building presents its principal elevation towards Erridge Rd, and a far less attractive elevation is presented towards Church Lane and the Conservation Area. The Erridge Rd elevation has some significant architectural qualities. A series of gables and hipped roofs which sit above tall windows that break through the line of the eaves of the single storey building. There is very good moulded brick used at the gables in place of bargeboards, and there are round headed arches formed over some of the windows, which are infilled by tiles where the edges of the tiles (oriented vertically) are exposed. However the architectural character of the school has been severely impaired by a badly designed single storey flat roofed extension at the NW corner of the school building, and by the replacement of original window frames with new inappropriately designed windows. On this basis it is recommended that the school be excluded from the Conservation Area.


74

Stratton Close Stratton Close is a small cul-de-sac of six detached houses. They date from 1955. The group is a later infill development on the Glebe Field. Buildings are informally laid out, and architecturally the development is quite varied, but is very much of its time. From Erridge Rd the Close has a narrow carriageway with no footways. The verges to each side are rather unkempt and overgrown, though there are some trees, including some hollies. The first houses present a rather stark appearance, with much dull grey pebbledash. Building materials elsewhere include some red brick, for example on the chimneys, unattractive yellow brick, stained timber cladding, and applied timber which gives a (superficial) appearance of timber frame construction infilled with pebbledash. The first house on the left has been greatly extended. Several of the chimneys have canted sides. The general character of the composition as a whole is not particularly attractive, and in terms of architecture and layout, is certainly greatly at variance compared to the general “garden suburb” character of the majority of the Conservation Area. On this basis it is concluded that this area should be excluded from the Conservation Area. Mostyn Rd Mostyn Rd is a long straight road, only the northern end lies within the Conservation Area. The buildings within the Conservation Area are mainly large houses of the “garden suburb” era, together with a few smaller cottages of the same era. The great majority of these buildings display a character which is entirely in keeping with the broader “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. Number 35 Mostyn Rd (the Flint Barn) is included on the Statutory List of buildings. The generous planting of garden frontages along the street, together with the street trees further reinforces the “garden suburb” character. In the southern part of the Conservation Area there are two pairs of pastiche “Georgian” blocks (numbers 37/39 and 41/43 Mostyn Rd). At present only one of these blocks lies within the Conservation Area (37/39). In their own terms neither building accords well with the general “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area, however the northern block (37/39) is in very close proximity to the Listed Flint Barn (35 Mostyn Rd). For this sole reason it seems sensible to retain 37/39 within the Conservation Area, as it is part of the Listed building’s setting. This will perpetuate what otherwise seems to be an illogical situation of having 2 buildings of identical design, next door to one another, but where one building lies within the Conservation Area and the other is outside it. On the opposite side of Mostyn Rd, lying just inside the Conservation Area boundary there is a very substantial building at 62a Mostyn Rd. Originally this would have been very much in keeping with the wider “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. The design is reminiscent of the architect JS Brocklesby, who did a lot of work within the Conservation Area. However the building has not been treated well, and a badly designed side extension has been added to the north-west corner. Despite this however, and on balance, it is felt that sufficient remains to warrant keeping the property within the Conservation Area. To the south of this at no 62 Mostyn Rd is a very small scale bungalow, which dates from 1963. It is set well back away from the road. A double garage is located closer top the road. The character of the property has little connection with the wider “garden suburb” character that prevails in most of the Conservation Area.


75

It is therefore recommended that all properties in Mostyn Rd, which currently lie within the Conservation Area, should remain within it, except for 62 Mostyn Rd, which should be excluded. Watery Lane Watery Lane is a narrow twisting lane, whose character is strongly reminiscent of the village character and the pre-suburban phase of development. It generally lacks separate footpaths, and it has nothing of the harder geometry of straight lines and inscribed radii of the typical urban or suburban street. Historic maps confirm its origins as part of the mediaeval village. The buildings along the street are however more typical of the “garden suburb” phase of development, and they include several excellent examples of Arts and crafts design which is seen elsewhere in the Conservation Area. Mature trees and the landscape quality confirm the distinctive character of this street. Despite the location of this area on the western edges of the Conservation Area it is concluded decisively that no properties in Watery Lane should be excluded from the Conservation Area. Recreation Ground The Recreation Ground lies at the western extremity of the Conservation Area. It is the one area which has been added to the initially designated area. The recreation ground itself is flat and featureless, however its edges adjacent to Manor Rd and Cannon Hill Lane are resonant of original field boundaries, serving as a reminder that these two roads (themselves outside the Conservation Area) have ancient origins. There are a few attractive mature trees along or close to the northern and southern edges of the open space. There are also some less well-suited evergreen trees here as well. At the south western corner of the site there is a sports pavilion, which presents a very sorry appearance. It is vandalised and covered in graffiti, even on the roof. It is constructed of very rustic vertical timber, which suggests an association with the “garden suburb” character of the Conservation Area. The appearance of the pavilion as viewed from the west is better, and there is less evidence of vandalism from this viewpoint. The relationship of the recreation ground to the original country lanes on the northern and western edges, and its relationship to old field boundaries, serve as a reminder of the old Merton village layout, prior to suburban development. On this basis it is suggested that it might be appropriate for this area to remain within the Conservation Area. Assessment of properties outwith the existing Conservation Area boundary On the north and north-western sides of the Conservation Area, the boundary coincides with the boundary of adjacent Conservation Areas (the John Innes – Wilton Crescent Conservation Area and the Merton Hall Rd Conservation Area). These common boundaries stretch from the tram line in the north, to the Nelson Hospital site in the west. Both of these neighbouring Conservation Areas have recently been the subject of Character Assessment work, including assessment of their boundaries.


76

The assessment of the boundaries of those neighbouring areas has lead to a recommendation that small extensions to both Conservation Areas should be agreed. These extensions involve adding one small adjacent area to each Conservation Area, and completing the Conservation Area coverage on the north side of Kingston Rd, opposite the Merton Park area. While the areas on both sides of Kingston Rd have elements in common, such as the common heritage of the development by the Merton Park Estate, and the work of the same architects, there are felt to be sufficient differences to keep them as two separate Conservation Area. The Merton Park area (to the south of Kingston Rd) has a looser structure, with generally greater spaces between buildings. The area to the north of Kingston Rd is rather more intensively developed, with a stronger relationship between one building and the next. On the basis of keeping distinct and separate Conservation Areas, further enlargement of the Merton Park Conservation Area towards the north or north west is not possible. To the north-east of the existing Conservation Area boundary there is the Tram line, and beyond that, an area of predominantly Victorian bye law residential terraces (Merton Park East). There is clear physical separation between this area and the designated Conservation Area, and although it has a coherent and attractive character, it is markedly different to the more loosely structured and greener areas of the Conservation Area. Architecturally the areas are also quite different. For these reasons it is considered that the existing north eastern Conservation Area boundary should remain unchanged along the tram line. To the east and south-east of the Conservation Area there is an extensive areas of largely inter-war suburban housing in roads such as Erridge Rd, Poplar Rd, Stratton Rd and Keswick Avenue, as well as the residual area of Dorset Rd. This area has a quite different character to the general character of the Conservation Area. It is far less distinctive both in terms of architecture, landscape structure than is the case with the Conservation Area. Building designs are more formulaic, a characteristic of the speculative building of the inter-war period. Its general character is therefore more typically “inter-war suburban”, and comprises semis and short terraces. This style of development is repeated across very wide areas of London. It is a later development than the majority of the Conservation Area, and it displays no evidence of historical associations with the mediaeval village. While it is unfortunate that for a short distance the existing Conservation Area boundary runs along the centre line of part of Dorset Rd, the character of the buildings on each side of the road here are sufficiently different to justify this distinction. Towards the south-east, at numbers 47 – 53 Dorset Rd, (built in 1915) there are two pairs of semi detached houses which display the distinctive architecture of JS Brocklesby, which is highly characteristic of the Conservation Area. A further pair of semi-detached houses, with possibly similar architectural associations, are seen at 58/60 Erridge Rd (built in 1925). Also there are is pair of detached houses at 13 and 15 Poplar Rd which may also be by Brocklesby.


77

Of these houses, the Dorset Rd houses are at least contiguous with the Conservation Area boundary. The others referred to above are more scattered and remote from the Conservation Area. Generally however these houses have suffered to a considerable extent from unfortunate alterations, including new window frames, in one case alteration of a hipped roof to a gabled roof, and in another the crude alteration of a ground floor canted bay to a square bay. On this basis it is recommended that there should be no enlargement of the Conservation Area in an easterly or south-easterly direction. In Mostyn Rd, to the south of the Conservation Area boundary, the architecture of the houses, and the general character of the area echoes the general style of areas in Erridge Rd, Poplar Rd and Stratton Rd (referred to above). The same reasons therefore apply, indicating that no extension of the Conservation Area boundary in this direction should be recommended. To the west and south-west of the Conservation Area there are open grounds of the Rutlish School, as well as some substantial modern school buildings of one and two storeys. Neither the layout or the area, nor the building architecture, nor the landscape character of this area is considered to be exceptional in any way. There is no echo of any residual features of the historic Merton Village nor of the later “garden suburb” character. To the west of the school grounds there is an unexceptional small residential development at Hadleigh Close, which dates from 1994, and whose character draws nothing from its surroundings. Further west again Aylward Rd the general character is typical of the inter war suburbia, with mainly semis and short terraces. This area is essentially similar to Erridge Rd, Poplar Rd and Stratton Rd, and for the same reasons it is not considered to be appropriate for inclusion into the Conservation Area. At the western end of the Conservation Area there is Cannon Hill Lane and Manor Rd. These two roads are interesting from the point of view that they are survivals of the network of country lanes and paths associated with the mediaeval village of Merton. The less geometrical highway configuration is resonant of these origins. Manor Rd is very narrow, it has a natural vegetated verge with trees on one side of the carriageway and a footway and grass verge, which are elevated relative to the carriageway, on the other. The buildings in these two roads are not typical of the “garden suburb” character seen in most of the Conservation Area. The houses on the north side of Manor Rd are not without interest, being a staggered terrace of tall and narrow houses, each with a square bay, topped by a gabled roof. Above these gables each house has a tall dormer window, again with a gabled roof. This gives a pronounced verticality to the composition of the elevation. The porches are interesting for the elaborate timber fretwork at the eaves of their lean-to roofs. Unfortunately many window frames have been replaced, which has diminished the value of this group of buildings. An adjacent terrace to the east is set further back, and is of less architectural interest. At present the Conservation Area boundary runs along the edges of the recreation ground, excluding both the streets and the buildings in Cannon Hill Lane and Manor Rd. There are various conflicting arguments referred to above as to whether any


78

change should be made to the boundary in this area. On balance however it is felt that the boundary should remain unchanged. Manor Gardens is a short, quiet residential cul-de-sac running off Watery Lane. A pedestrian connection leads into Blakesley Walk at its western end. Blakesley Walk is shown on historic maps, and is another of the old village lanes and paths, which link Manor Rd to Kingston Rd. Manor Gardens itself is a very attractive residential street with large semi detached and terraced houses. The design of the buildings is however not typical of the “garden suburb” development in the Conservation Area generally. It is also true that there have been a number of unfortunate window alterations on some of these houses, which has to some extent undermined their original character. Nevertheless despite these arguments, it is felt that the street still retains enough of interest to warrant Conservation Area status. The planting and landscape quality in Manor Gardens is also very attractive, with very well kept front gardens and very attractive street trees. The three terraces of houses each have a symmetry which is unusual, in that the houses at each end have a wing which projects forward towards the road. The buildings, which were constructed between 1908 and 1911, are well detailed, and employ a rich mix of traditional materials, including red brick at the ground floor, pebbledash at first floor, ornate hanging tiles on the bays, and well detailed timber work on the porches. Where original windows survive they have leaded glass in the upper lights. The overall character of this street is rather different to the informal “garden suburb” ambience seen in most of the Conservation Area. Here there is more geometrical regularity, rhythm, symmetry and a rather more intensively built up character. In its own right Manor Gardens stands quite favourable comparison with many of the existing Conservation Areas in the Borough. Properties are generally well cared for, as are most of the front gardens. The option of either designating these houses as a separate Conservation Area, or adding them to the Merton park Conservation Area needs to be considered. If a separate Conservation Area were to be designated then it would be one of the smallest Conservation Areas in the Borough. Other very small Conservation Areas (such as the Wimbledon Windmill and Bertram Cottages) are freestanding areas, remote from other Conservation Areas. This would not be the case with Manor Gardens It should be noted that even within the existing Conservation Area itself there are significant variations in character, including the “garden suburb”, as well as the historic village. Dwellings vary from large mansions to small cottages. Clearly the character of the area is not wholly uniform, and therefore adding an area which has a slightly different character, may be acceptable. In conclusion Manor Gardens is considered to be quite small to be a separate Conservation Area in its own right, but instead it might reasonably be incorporated into an expanded Merton Park Conservation Area, albeit as a distinct entity within the wider area. It is therefore concluded that the boundary of the Merton Park Conservation Area should be extended to include all the properties in Manor Gardens, and the adjacent area of Blakesley Walk.


79

Overall Conclusion on Conservation Area boundaries The proposed boundary changes are illustrated on plan no. DLU/2202 a/b. The only places where any changes from the existing Conservation Area boundary are recommended are: • addition of 1 – 27 (odds) Manor Gardens • addition of 2 – 28 (evens) Manor Gardens • deletion of 62 Mostyn Rd • deletion of 1 – 6 (consec) Stratton Close • deletion of Merton Park Primary School, Erridge Rd • deletion of 2a/2b Poplar Rd ______________________________________________________________ Addendum Following public consultations carried out in May – June 2006 it is suggested that the Merton Park Primary School should not be deleted from the Conservation Area. The representations argued that the school is an important focus for the local community. It is also noted that the School building marks one of the entrances to the Conservation Area as one approaches from the south, so it acts as something of an entrance feature. July 2006


80

The Character Appraisal is written on the basis of the boundary alterations recommended above.


81

conservation area character appraisal – work programme · 2006. 9. 18. · appendix 1...

Documents