St Luke’s Gardens
Planning design report
breeze
Contents.
Executive Summary.
Historical context.
The history of St Luke’s Church
The history of St Luke’s Gardens
Introduction.
St Luke’s Gardens.
Previous relevant studies.
Site location and context
EC1 New Deal Masterplan Framework
Site analysis
EC1 NDC Public Space Strategy
St Luke’s Framework
Proposed works.
St Luke’s Area Street Improvement Plan
Policy context.
Consultation.
EC1 New Deal for Communities
The Project Steering Group
Islington corporate policy
Planning and conservation
Islington Greenspace policy
Issues relating to trees
Islington Council planning policy
Conservation issues
Islington Inclusive & Accessible design
Inclusive and accessibility issues
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Greenspace maintenance issues
Planning guidance for accessibility
Public consultation
Design proposals
Relevant work completed.
Public consultation
St Luke’s Streetworks
Air spade investigations
Radnor Street Gardens
Package 1 | Boundary wall works
Whitecross Street
Package 2 | Helmet Row entrance
Promenade of Light
Package 2 | Ironmonger Row entrance
Blooming St Luke’s
Package 3 | Boundary planting
Package 4 | Footpaths
Future development projects.
St Luke’s Churchyard railings.
Site surveys and studies.
This report should be read in-conjunction
Topographic survey
with the following documents:
Tree Surveys
Minor Projects Access Statement
Tree survey to BS 5837
Environmental Monitoring Form
Root radar survey
Accompanying survey documents
Airspade ground investigations
Planning application forms
Understorey shrub survey
Planning application drawings
Archaeological desk top study [MOLAS]
Boundary walls
24 June 2009
Pedestrian movement
Crime opportunity profile
Land ownership
Planning designations
breeze
chartered landscape architects
110 Aberdeen House
22-24 Highbury Grove
London N5 2EA
01
Executive summary.
Introduction.
• To explore options to improve
The proposed works.
Boundary wall works.
St Luke’s Gardens is a public open space
accessibility to the existing stepped
Following the completion of the site survey
The proposed boundary wall works include
in the St Luke’s area of London, EC1.
pedestrian entrances from both Ironmonger
work, and in response to the public
the removal of the existing cementitous
Historically, the Gardens formed a
Row and Helmet Row. There is currently
consultation and the client brief, the
render which has delaminated in places
northern churchyard extension to St Luke’s
only one level access to the Gardens from
proposed works are as follows:
and is generally in a poor condition. The
Church, Old Street, separated from the
Mitchell Street.
existing brickwork will be repaired, and
main churchyard by Mitchell Street. In the
• To enhance connections between St
Ironmonger Row entrance.
where possible a vertical drainage barrier
1870’s the space was laid out as a public
Luke’s Gardens, Radnor Street Gardens
• Removal of the existing steps, footpath,
will be inserted along the inside face of the
garden, and remain as one of the
and the Leisure Centre, to create a sense
entrance gate and railings
retaining wall. New metal copings will be
areas most important public parks. The
of unity and increase perceptions of
• Widening of the opening in the boundary
installed and due to the high probability of
church itself closed in 1959, and lay
greenery in the area as a Whole.
wall, new stone footpath on micro-piled
the loss of the front face of the brickwork
derelict for 40 years, prior to being
• To repair the poor boundary wall which in
structure, entrance gates and signage
when the existing render is removed, the
redeveloped as the home of The London
recent years has attracted graffiti and given
• New hedge and shrub planting adjacent
walls will be rendered with a lime render.
Symphony Orchestra in the late 90s, with
the area a poor run down
to entrance
Anti-graffiti coatings will also be applied.
the work being completed in 2003.
appearance that feels unsafe attracting
anti-social behaviour.
Helmet Row entrance.
Footpath re-surfacing works.
The Freehold of St Luke’s Gardens is under
• Removal of the existing steps, footpath,
The proposal is to reinstate the stone
the jurisdiction of the Diocese of London,
Site surveys and investigations.
entrance gate and railings. Making good
edgings where required, and provide a
with Islington Greenspace having
The site surveys completed include: Tree,
the existing opening in the wall with new
new tarmacadam wearing course to the
responsibility for its maintenance and
root radar, air spade, shrub, topographical,
brickwork, copings and new railings.
existing footpaths. Further survey works
management.
boundary wall, archaeological and pedes-
• Creation of a new opening in the
are required to establish whether areas will
trian movement.
existing boundary wall north of the existing
require excavation and new construction.
St Luke’s Gardens is located within the St
entrance, new stone foot
Luke’s Conservation Area. Whilst St Luke’s
Public Consultation.
path on micro-piled structure, entrance
Shrub removal and new planting.
Church itself is Grade I Listed, the Gardens
The feasibility study design process has
gates and signage
As part of the proposed works, a new
are not listed, with only one set of access
involved consultation with the Project
• New hedge and shrub planting adjacent
softworks scheme will be implemented
Gates from Mitchell Street being Grade II
Steering Group which includes local
to entrance
within the existing planting beds in areas
Listed along with the boundary railings to
residents, Islington and EC1 NDC officers,
only associated within the entrance
the main churchyard. The Gardens remain
local stakeholders: LSO St Luke’s, Toffee
New entrance from Norman Street.
improvement works.
designated as consecrated ground and
Park Adventure Playground and Youth Club
The pedestrian movement study identified
contain 21 high quality mature London
and St Luke’s Primary School. Three
a need for a new entrance to the north of
Plane Trees, providing a high level of visual
meetings have been held during the initial
the Gardens from Norman Street. Due to
amenity.
design development stages of the project.
constraints of level change between the
In February 2009, questionnaires were
inside and outside of the Gardens and
The project brief.
distributed to local households and
location of mature London Plane Trees, the
breeze were appointed by LBI Greenspace
businesses, detailing the proposals and
only possible location for the creation of a
working in Partnership with EC1 NDC in
providing an opportunity for residents to
new entrance is on the corner of Norman
September 2008 to prepare a feasibility
provide feedback to the Council. The
Street and Ironmonger Row.
study, detailed planning application, and
design proposals were displayed in the
construction package for improvement
Gardens for four weeks, culminating in a
Further consultation is currently being
works to St Luke’s Gardens. The project
public consultation event held in both the
undertaken with regard to this entrance.
has been bourne out of previous studies
Gardens and Finsbury Leisure Centre on in
and frameworks completed over the past
March 2009.
Therefore at this stage these works are not
five years on behalf of both the Local
being submitted as part of the detailed
Authority and EC1 NDC. The key
The results of the consultation exercise
planning application.
requirements of the brief are as follows:
show public support for the proposals.
02
Introduction.
This Planning Design Report provides supporting
information for the detailed planning application for
proposed external works to St Luke’s Gardens, EC1.
The project has been borne out of previous studies
and frameworks completed over the past five years on
behalf of both the Local Authority and EC1 NDC.
In essence the project brief is to explore design ideas
to improve accessibility through the Gardens to meet
current accessible and inclusive design legislation,
refurbishment works to the existing boundary retaining
walls and new soft landscape proposals where
appropriate.
This planning design report provides documentation
of the work completed by the design team to arrive at
a detailed planning application proposal, including site
surveys and investigations, and consultations
undertaken.
This report should be read in-conjunction with the
detailed planning application drawings, minor projects
access statement, environmental monitoring form 2008
and background surveys and site investigations
detailed in this report.
03
Previous relevant studies.
Over the past seven years, there have been
Radnor Street Gardens, St Luke’s streets
The proposals on which the design brief
a number of key pieces of strategic
and Fortune Street Gardens.
were based included:
master planning work and policy
development which have highlighted the
St Luke’s Framework.
•
Opening up the boundary walls
need for works to improve and enhance St
Shillam + Smith, July 2006
•
Feature lighting proposals
Luke’s Gardens.
•
Review of the existing entrances
Consultation undertaken as part of the St
•
Consideration of additional access
These reports have involved consultation
Luke’s Framework identified a number of
to improve the use of the park as a
with the local community and wider
key themes including: availability and
pedestrian route.
stakeholder groups.
diversity of open space, safety, leisure,
young people and play.
An action plan was prepared based on
The relevant previous work completed
these proposals.
includes:
The report states that: ‘The complementary
relationship of each of the elements,
The initial work completed as part of this
EC1 New Deal Masterplan Framework.
notably St Luke’s Gardens and Radnor
work included discussion with both the
Llewelyn-Davies, March 2001
Street Gardens, the adventure playground
Project Steering Group and LBI Officers
and the school are all considered in the
with regard to the viability of the proposals.
The study established the principle to
proposals in ways to improve public health,
‘create a green chain linking spaces across
contribute to inclusiveness, social cohesion
The subsequent concept work, and
the Bunhill Area’
and eliminate anti-social behaviour.
detailed planning application scheme
DOES NOT propose removal of boundary
This included improvements to Finsbury
St Luke’s Area Street Improvement Plan.
rails or feature or white lighting scheme to
Leisure Centre for sport and recreation, St
Atkins Global, 2008
be implemented.
Luke’s Gardens as a quiet space for sitting
and contemplation and Radnor Street
In 2008, Atkins Global completed an area
Gardens as a boisterous and activity
action plan for the St Luke’s area including
orientated play space.
a traffic and streetscape study, and an
outline costed design proposal for St
EC1 NDC Public Space Strategy
Luke’s Gardens.
July 2004
The report suggests that
‘works carried
The Public Space Strategy provides a plan
out to St Luke’s Gardens should be aimed
for streets, parks and estates in the EC1
at completing a safe, accessible and well
NDC area. The Strategy was formally
lit pedestrian route as an alternative to the
adopted by the EC1 NDC Board and
adjoining pedestrianised streets. Opening
Islington South Area Committee.
up the Gardens will reinforce the links with
surrounding streets, lending an increased
The strategy identified that there was a
purpose to the activity of each location in
lack of open space within the NDC area,
clear view would reinforce each other.
and existing spaces were generally of poor
quality and/or condition.
Installation of white lighting throughout the
Gardens and the removal of the
Since publication in 2004, big
boundary fence and high shrub planting will
improvements have resulted to many areas
be necessary to ensure clear site lines.’
of public space identified in the Strategy,
including: Whitecross Street, Old Street,
04
Policy context.
There are a number of planning,
Islington Council planning policy.
Islington Council inclusive and
Planning guidance for accessibility.
regeneration and open space policy
Unitary Development Plan, Islington
accessible design.
documents which are relevant to this
Council, 2002
Islington Council note that inclusive design
PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport
project. These include the following:
is not a fixed set of design criteria, but
‘an
and Recreation - paragraph 18(ii)
Local Development Framework, Islington
evolving philosophy that aims to produce
encourage:
EC1 New Deal for Communities.
Council 2008 [Draft]
aesthetically pleasing, functional
Public Space Strategy, July 2004
environments that can be used equally by
‘better accessibility of existing open spaces
The Draft LDF notes in the Open Space
everyone, irrespective of age, gender or
and sports and recreational facilities, taking
Useable Environments for all Catering for
and Recreation paper for Bunhill and
disability’.
account of the mobility needs in the local
Dogs in EC1 Islington, January 2009
Clerkenwell Area Action Plan that:
‘Many of
population...’.
the existing areas of open space have
The Disability Rights Commission have six
Islington corporate policy.
limited public access, and are of sub-
guiding principles for inclusive design. The
Paragraph 20 states
‘promote
The ‘One Vision’ aims to build a borough
standard value or quality. The built
relevant principles to this project are as
accessibility......ensure that facilities are
through:
environment in many cases does not relate
follows:
accessible for people with disabilities’.
well to existing public open space’.
•
A greener, cleaner and safer place to
•
Ease of use: no one should be forced
work and live
Environment Policy, Islington Council
to exert undue effort, experience
•
A borough of strong, thriving and
discomfort or a loss of dignity.
active communities, where people are
Islington Council state that
‘The Council’s
•
Quality: aspects of design incorpo-
involved in the decisions that affect
UDP provides a framework for developing a
rated to meet the specific needs of dis-
their lives
built environment that promotes
abled people should be produced to a
•
A place where people of all
inclusion and social equality. All external
standard equal to that in the remainder
backgrounds are able to achieve their
works should be designed to be accessible
of the development. Designers should,
full potential.
and safe for people with mobility, visual or
wherever possible, exceed minimum
hearing impairments’.
standards, to avoid impressions of
The project brief is contributing to this
meanness or double standards
vision and is doing so through the following
Good practice in relation to inclusive and
•
Safety: environments must not only be
Council priorities:
accessible design as considered through
safe but also inspire a sense of safety.
the planning process is noted as follows:
•
Listening to Islington
Relevant documents include:
•
Stronger communities
‘The Council will require that proposals to
Planning for Access for Disabled People: A
•
A greener, cleaner and safer borough
enhance the public realm and the
Good Practice Guide.
pedestrian environment are designed to
Islington Greenspace policy.
meet the highest standards of access and
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The project brief contributes to the aims set
inclusion. Detailed standards on the layout
out in the Greenspace and Leisure Strategy
of footways and crossing points including
The Disability Discrimination Act ensures
2006-2010 in the following ways:
dropped kerbs, tactile paving and facilities
rights for people who have a disability.
at signalled controlled crossings, lighting,
Employers and service providers such as
•
Green space: More Places, Better
signage, public toilets and street furniture
Islington Council must take all reasonable
spaces
are included in the Council’s
measures to ensure that they do not
•
Sustainability
Supplementary Planning Guidance on an
discriminate against disabled people.
•
Safe spaces pleasant parks
Accessible and Inclusive Environment and
These measures include the removal of
•
Promoting partnership working
in the Government’s ‘Inclusive Mobility’
physical barriers, such as steps, and the
guidelines.’
provision of auxiliary aids that will assist
disabled people to gain access to and use
facilities.
05
Relevant work completed.
Future development projects.
Since 2007 Islington Council in
Whitecross Street, 2007
Within the St Luke’s area and wider
partnership with EC1 NDC have
Whitecross Street is a the local shopping
environment, there are a number of
implemented a number of public realm
street and markets with EC1 to the south
projects at various stages of design and
projects within the St Luke’s Area which
of Old Street from St Luke’s Gardens. The
development which will affect the future
form part of the delivery plans identified
market and shops were in decline, but a
pedestrian and wider open space
in the various framework studies. The
streetscape project, and creation of new
network connections with St Luke’s
projects of relevance to St Luke’s Gardens
trader pitches has revived the area, which
Gardens. These include the re-
are as follow:
is now very popular with local residents
development of Finsbury Leisure Centre,
and lunchtime office workers.
refurbishment of Ironmonger Row Baths,
St Luke’s Streetworks, 2009
In the summer months, many people buy
and improvement works to Kings Square
Following on from the action plan study
lunch on Whitecross Street and then visit
Gardens, Kings Square Estate and
completed in 2008, Islington Council Public
both the main St Luke’s Churchyard and St
Barnabas House.
Realm Division have implemented a series
Luke’s Gardens.
of streetscape works to Bath Street, Lizard
Within the wider context, the development
Street, Radnor Street and the northern
Promenade of Light, Old Street, 2007
of the City Road Canal Basin to the north
section of Ironmonger Row. These works
A project to re-design the public realm
of City Road is likely to increase
have included creating shared surfaces,
along Old Street adjacent to the main
pedestrian traffic through the St Luke’s
street tree planting and altering the one
shopping area and tube/train station.
area in the longer term, and provide new
way traffic flow on Radnor Street to reduce
areas of public realm and open space as
‘rat running’. This has resulted in a drop of
Blooming St Luke’s, 2006
part of the masterplan proposals.
traffic movements within the area,
In 2006 Islington Council and EC1 NDC
particularly on Radnor Street along the
supported by The Arts Council England
St Luke’s Churchyard railings.
boundary with both Radnor Street Gardens
and the local community carried out
and St Luke’s Gardens.
horticultural works to improve the Gardens
Islington Council are currently consulting
which included new raised planting beds
on the restoration and repainting of the
Radnor Street Gardens, 2008
to the centre of the Gardens, paving and
Grade II Listed churchyard railings to St
Re-development of the existing Gardens
furniture.
Luke’s. This also includes the entrance
was completed in July 2008, responding
piers and gates to St Luke’s Gardens at
to the masterplan framework for a park for
Mitchell Street. The railings are currently
play and recreation. The design includes
painted a light stone colour and
a new direct pedestrian footpath across
discussions are taking place as to whether
the site, responding to an existing desire
the repainting of the metalwork should be
line, which has resulted in a more direct
in a dark green. Therefore co-ordination
connection between the northern section
between the two projects will be required
of Ironmonger Row, Lizard Street and Old
with regard to painting of boundary gates
Street beyond.
and railings.
Following on from the works completed to
Radnor Street Gardens in 2008, the
existing ballcourt space at Toffee Park
Adventure Playground has recently been
replaced with a free play garden, including
a diverse range of spaces for play, social
interaction and horticulture. The garden is
visible from Ironmonger Row.
06
Toffee Park Adventure Playground
Radnor Street Gardens
Radnor Street Gardens ballcourt
Radnor Street streetworks
Whitecross Street looking towards St Luke’s
Blooming St Luke’s works
07
Site surveys and studies.
Ironmonger Row
Ironmonger Row Baths
As part of this feasibility study, the
Row and Ironmonger Row, the tree survey
following site surveys and investigations
commented that:
‘The pattern of
have been completed. Full copies of all
buttressing of trees adjacent to the site’s
Norman Street
surveys have submitted as supporting
eastern entrance suggests that the trees
documents to the detailed planning
may be rooting asymmetrically [biased
application.
away from the entrance] and that careful
09
modification of the existing steps may be a
10
11
12
Topographic survey.
possibility’.
08a
13
Finsbury Leisure
In September 2008, Islington Greenspace
Further exploratory work was
Centre
08
Radnor Street
commissioned a topographic survey for St
recommended to establish the exact below
14
Luke’s Gardens and surrounding streets
ground rooting pattern of trees where
to provide detailed information including
works were proposed.
07
ground levels, boundary walls, tree planting
positions to assist the design team in the
Root Radar Survey
preparation of the concept design work.
Sorbus International Limited, December
06
2008
15
Tree surveys.
As part of the requirement of the Client
Helmet Row
Three separate tree surveys have been
Brief, a non-invasive root radar survey was
commissioned as part of the feasibility
commissioned for the following areas of
St Luke’s
16
study work as follows:
the site:
05
Gardens
Tree Survey, to BS 5837
•
Helmet Row entrance and adjacent
17
Landmark Trees, September 2008
planting beds
•
Ironmonger Row entrance and
04
The tree survey noted the following
adjacent planting beds
information of particular relevance to any
•
The north-east corner of the site at
18
proposed external works:
the junction of Ironmonger Row and
Radnor Street where initial site analysis
03
•
21 mature London Plane trees to the
work suggested a new entrance may
periphery of the site. 19 of these are
be required
19
classed as ‘Category A’ [the highest
Toffee Park
quality] and 2 ‘Category B’.
The survey highlighted the presence of
Youth Club &
01b
02
•
The Plane trees contribute to a high
roots in these areas at three depths [0-
Adventure
20
level of visual amenity
20cm, 20-41cm and below 41cm], high-
21
Playground
•
They have a future life expectancy in
lighted through 30 scans completed within
01
20a
excess of 40 years
the site.
•
Due to their relative close proximity,
01a
the trees have a continuous root pro-
Overall, the survey scans noted a denser
Mitchell Street
tection zone to the boundary of the site
root pattern beneath the adjacent main
•
There are also 4 ‘under-storey’ trees
footpath than the two existing entrance
including Plum, Tree of Heaven and
footpaths/steps from Helmet Row and
Tree Species
Maple noted as either Category B or C.
Ironmonger Row.
01-21 London Plane
In terms of access improvements to the
01a-01b Tree of Heaven
existing step entrances from both Helmet
08a
Maple
20a
Plum
St Luke’s Close
08
Yellow Area
Root protection zone
LSO St Luke’s
Airspade ground investigations
level of planting, with the boundary
GoRoots, March 2009
planting to Ironmonger Row being patchy
with greater areas of bare earth present.
In March 2009, six trenches were
excavated using an air spade technique
The shrub planting directly around the
to establish the exact location and size
existing entrances also reduces the site
of roots within the three areas of the site
lines into the Gardens from the external
which were subject of the earlier non-
street level.
invasive root radar survey. breeze
subsequently issued a summary report of
As part of the site analysis work,
breeze
findings of the root radar survey to the
have surveyed the positions of the main
Client in March.
blocks of under storey planting. The
species present on site include the
As part of the investigation works, breeze
following:
met with Andrew Lederer, Tree Service
Officer from LBI Greenspace and Jon Ryan,
Berberis spp.
Tree Preservation Officer from LBI Planning
Choisya ternata
to view the trenches once exposed.
Cotoneaster - various spp.
Crataegus monogyna
The air spade works have resulted in some
Elaeagnus pungnes ‘Imaculata’
design revisions of the Stage C design
Hedera spp.
proposals where dense fibrous tree roots
Ligustrum
were located on site, or structural tree
Mahonia aquifolium
roots which cannot be disturbed by any
Mahonia japonica
proposed works.
Prunus laurocerasus ‘Otto Luyken’
Taxus baccata
The most significant impact of the air
Viburnum rhytidophyllum
spade investigations has been the
relocation of the Helmet Row entrance to
Ground cover ivy growth within the beds
the north of the existing step access due
has spread over areas of the boundary
to the presence of a large structural root to
retaining walls. This has caused some
London Plane tree number 5.
damage to the render.
A photographic record of each of the
There are also a number of self-seeded
trenches is illustrated opposite. For full
plants such as Crataegus around the
details of the survey, refer to the Air Spade
entrance at Helmet Row.
Investigation Report, dated March 2009.
Understorey shrub survey.
The boundary planting beds contain a
diverse mix of amenity woody shrubs, both
deciduous and evergreen. The planting on
the western and northern side of the
Gardens along the boundaries with Helmet
Row and Norman Street contain a denser
09
Archaeology.
Archaeological potential
Archaeology desk top study
The report states that there is low poten-
Museum of London Archaeology Service
tial for archaeological remains dating from
September 2008.
the prehistoric period to the later medi-
eval period. However, a high potential for
MOLAS were commissioned by breeze
remains from the post-medieval period. In
to complete an archaeological desk top
particular 18 and 19th century burials. The
study for St Luke’s Gardens. MOLAS had
location and depths of any burials have not
previously completed a similar study for St
been recorded within the Gardens. This
Luke’s Churchyard as part of the LSO St
would need to be confirmed by field
Luke’s development.
investigations. It is also possible that
there are remains of the civil war defences,
The key issues raised as part of the study
although these may have been removed by
are as follows:
grave digging.
•
The Gardens are a former burial
Implications of design proposals
ground which is still consecrated
•
The site is outside an ‘Archaeology
Overall the report states that: ‘
Shallow
Priority Area’ to the south of Old Street
works and ground raising is unlikely to
•
The top 1.0m of the Gardens is likely to
affect graves, while deeper intrusions such
be made ground
as trees and ramps, may have an impact’.
•
High potential for medieval burials
across the site
The implications from re-landscaping the
•
Possibility of civil war defences within
site will vary depending on the type of
the northern section of the Gardens
landscaping carried out. It is probable that
•
The site is under the jurisdiction of
the top 1m of ground is made ground
the Church of England Faculty and
[material dumped over the burials] which
therefore any works would require
may contain disarticulated bone and
Faculty approval
possible fragments of gravestones, but is
•
A Licence from the Ministry of Justice
unlikely to contain any burials. Shallow
would be required should any human
works and ground raising is unlikely to
remains be discovered on site as part
affect graves, while deeper intrusions such
of the works.
as trees and ramps, may have an impact.
There are national and local planning
Further work required
policies which set out parameters for best
practice guidance in relation to archaeology
The report recommends further site
and development proposals. The report
specific investigations prior to and during
sets out a detailed summary of relevant
any construction works which may have an
policy, and in particular the requirements of
impact on human burials.
Islington Council’s UDP which have been
retained as part of the development of the
Local Development Framework.
10
Boundary walls.
appropriate level of funding secured to
•
There are no movement joints along
areas subject to graffiti. This contributes
complete the necessary works.
the length of the boundary wall
to the general appearance of the gardens
Visual boundary wall survey
•
The facing cementitous render has
feeling run down.
Conisbee,
The visual survey provided the following
failed in places primarily due to
comments:
moisture ingress to the rear of the wall,
The survey recommended:
A non-invasive visual boundary structural
and lack of appropriate top weathering
survey has been completed. As the
•
Walls vary in height between 400 and
detail
•
Addition of a suitable coping or
existing brickwork walls are rendered, a full
1100mm, retaining between 0 and
•
Sections of the wall are covered in Ivy
•
weathering detail to the top of the wall
structural survey of the walls would require
750mm of material internally
which is further contributing to damage
•
The ivy to be removed from sections
removing the render, and is not advisable
•
There are no visual signs of structural
to both render and brickwork
of the wall as this is exacerbating
until a detailed design strategy for
defects
damage to the render
improvement works has been discussed
•
There are no weep holes, tanking or
Sections of the existing render also have
•
The removal of sections of the wall to
and agreed with LBI Planning and
other water proofing measures to the
visually different treatments including plain
enlarge entrances would not impact on
Conservation, Greenspace and the
walls [generally retaining walls]
tender, different paint colours and some
the structural integrity of the wall
Helmet Row entrance
Mitchell Street entrance
Ironmonger Row entrance
Photographic record of the different wall conditions including damaged and delaminated render, varied finishes to the render, ivy growth and exposed brickwork.
11
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
qóéáÅ~ä==ÉñáëíáåÖ=ï~ää=éä~å=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
qóéáÅ~ä=ëíê~áÖÜí=ëÉÅíáçå=~åÇ=ÅçêåÉê=ÇÉí~áä=áääìëíê~íÉÇ
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
bñáëíáåÖ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=ê~áäáåÖ
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
é~åÉä=Äçäí=ÑáñÉÇ=íç=f=_É~ã
ìéêáÖÜíëI=~åÇ=ëìééçêíÉÇ
bñáëíáåÖ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=ê~áäáåÖ
çå=Ä~ëÉ=ê~áä=Äó=P=åç=
é~åÉä=Äçäí=ÑáñÉÇ=íç=f=_É~ã
áåíÉêãÉÇá~íÉ=ëìééçêíë=
ìéêáÖÜíëI=~åÇ=ëìééçêíÉÇ
éÉê=é~åÉäK=NRñNRãã=ëçäáÇ=ëÉÅíáçå
çå=Ä~ëÉ=ê~áä=Äó=P=åç=
îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=íìêåÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ=QR=ÇÉÖêÉÉë
bñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
áåíÉêãÉÇá~íÉ=ëìééçêíë=
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=I=ïáíÜ=OMãã=íÜáÅâ=
éÉê=é~åÉäK=NRñNRãã=ëçäáÇ=ëÉÅíáçå
êÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ
îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=íìêåÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ=QR=ÇÉÖêÉÉë
jçêí~ê=ÑáääÉí=ïáíÜ=êÉåÇÉê
xíÜáÅâåÉëë=î~êáÉëz
Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ñçêã=ÉñáëíáåÖ=
fåíÉêå~ä=ï~ää=ÄìííêÉëëÉëë
ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=íç=ï~ää
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ä~Åâ=çÑ=
~í=~ééêçñáã~íÉäó=OKTRã=ÅÉåíêÉë
ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää=xä~íÉê
~ÇÇáíáçå=íÜ~å=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=êÉåÇÉêz
bñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=I=ïáíÜ=OMãã=íÜáÅâ=
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
êÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
xíÜáÅâåÉëë=î~êáÉëz
jçêí~ê=ÑáääÉí=ïáíÜ=êÉåÇÉê
Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ñçêã=ÉñáëíáåÖ=
ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=íç=ï~ää
bñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=
xíÜáÅâåÉëë=î~êáÉëz
bñíÉåí=çÑ=ÄìíêÉëë=íç=
ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
qçéëçáä=äÉîÉä=çÑ==ÄçìåÇ~êó
éä~åíáåÖ=ÄÉÇ
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
ollq=molqb`qflk
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
^ob^=ql=j^qrob
xbëíáã~íÉÇ=~í=NRãã=íÜáÅâåÉëëz
ilkalk=mi^kb=qobbp
`çåÇáíáçå=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=î~êáÉëI
ïáíÜ=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ÉñéçëÉÇ
bñáëíáåÖ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=ê~áäáåÖ
jçêí~ê=ÑáääÉí=ïáíÜ=êÉåÇÉê
é~åÉä=Äçäí=ÑáñÉÇ=íç=f=_É~ã
bñáëíáåÖ=ÜáÖÜï~ó=äÉîÉä
Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ñçêã=ÉñáëíáåÖ=
ìéêáÖÜíëI=~åÇ=ëìééçêíÉÇ
íç=fêçåãçåÖÉê=oçï
ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=íç=ï~ää
çå=Ä~ëÉ=ê~áä=Äó=P=åç=
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
áåíÉêãÉÇá~íÉ=ëìééçêíë=
éÉê=é~åÉäK=NRñNRãã=ëçäáÇ=ëÉÅíáçå
aÉéíÜ=çÑ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=
îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=íìêåÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ=QR=ÇÉÖêÉÉë
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=~åÇ=ÑçìåÇ~íáçå
qóéáÅ~ä==ÉñáëíáåÖ=ï~ää=ëÉÅíáçå=íç=fêçåãçåÖÉê=oçï
ÇÉí~áäë=åçí=âåçï
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
bñáëíáåÖ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=ê~áäáåÖ
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
é~åÉä=Äçäí=ÑáñÉÇ=íç=f=_É~ã
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
ìéêáÖÜíëI=~åÇ=ëìééçêíÉÇ
çå=Ä~ëÉ=ê~áä=Äó=P=åç=
bñáëíáåÖ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=ê~áäáåÖ
áåíÉêãÉÇá~íÉ=ëìééçêíë=
é~åÉä=Äçäí=ÑáñÉÇ=íç=f=_É~ã
éÉê=é~åÉäK=NRñNRãã=ëçäáÇ=ëÉÅíáçå
ìéêáÖÜíëI=~åÇ=ëìééçêíÉÇ
îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=íìêåÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ=QR=ÇÉÖêÉÉë
çå=Ä~ëÉ=ê~áä=Äó=P=åç=
áåíÉêãÉÇá~íÉ=ëìééçêíë=
éÉê=é~åÉäK=NRñNRãã=ëçäáÇ=ëÉÅíáçå
îÉêíáÅ~ä=Ä~ê=íìêåÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ=QR=ÇÉÖêÉÉë
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ä~Åâ=çÑ=
ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää=xä~íÉê
~ÇÇáíáçå=íÜ~å=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=êÉåÇÉêz
jçêí~ê=ÑáääÉí=ïáíÜ=êÉåÇÉê
Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ñçêã=ÉñáëíáåÖ=
qçé=~êáëÉ=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=ÄêçâÉå=~åÇ=Ç~ã~ÖÉÇ
ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=íç=ï~ää
jçêí~ê=ÑáääÉí=ïáíÜ=êÉåÇÉê
Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=Ñçêã=ÉñáëíáåÖ=
ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=íç=ï~ää
bñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=
xíÜáÅâåÉëë=î~êáÉëz
bñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
bñíÉåí=çÑ=ÄìíêÉëë=íç=
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=I=ïáíÜ=OMãã=íÜáÅâ=
ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
êÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ
xíÜáÅâåÉëë=î~êáÉëz
qçéëçáä=äÉîÉä=çÑ==ÄçìåÇ~êó
éä~åíáåÖ=ÄÉÇ
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
qçéëçáä=äÉîÉä=çÑ==ÄçìåÇ~êó
éä~åíáåÖ=ÄÉÇ
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
ollq=molqb`qflk
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅÉÇ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
xbëíáã~íÉÇ=~í=NRãã=íÜáÅâåÉëëz
^ob^=ql=j^qrob
`çåÇáíáçå=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=î~êáÉë=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áëëìÉëW
ilkalk=mi^kb=qobbp
`çåÇáíáçå=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=î~êáÉëI
NK=`ê~ÅâÉÇ=êÉåÇÉê=ÇìÉ=íç=ï~íÉê=áåÖêÉëëLîÉÖÉí~íáçå=áãé~Åíë
ïáíÜ=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ÉñéçëÉÇ
~åÇ=Ñêçëí=~Åíáçå
OK=_êçâÉå=ëÉÅíáçå=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=ïÜÉêÉ=~êÉ~ë=Ü~îÉ=Åçää~éëÉÇ
bñáëíáåÖ=ÜáÖÜï~ó=äÉîÉä
PK=aÉä~ãáå~íáçå=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê
íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉí
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
QK=bñéçëÉÇ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ïáíÜ=ïÉ~íÜÉêÉÇ=ÄêáÅâ=~åÇ=ãçêí~ê=
àçáåíáåÖ=ÉêçÇáåÖ=ÇìÉ=íç=ïÉ~íÜÉêáåÖ
bñáëíáåÖ=ÜáÖÜï~ó=äÉîÉä
íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉí
qóéáÅ~ä==ÉñáëíáåÖ=ï~ää=ÉäÉî~íáçå=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
xäÉîÉä=î~êáÉëz
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
pìãã~êó=çÑ=îáëì~ä=ëíêìÅíìê~ä=ï~ää=ëìêîÉó
aÉéíÜ=çÑ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=
`çåáëÄÉÉI=`çåëìäí~íáåÖ=båÖáåÉÉêëI=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMU
ÅçåëíêìÅíáçå=~åÇ=ÑçìåÇ~íáçå
ÇÉí~áäë=åçí=âåçï
qÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ï~ää
pìêîÉó=ÑáåÇáåÖë
oÉÅçããÉåÇ~íáçåë
qóéáÅ~ä==ÉñáëíáåÖ=ï~ää=ëÉÅíáçå=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
qÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄçìåÇ~êó=ï~ää=áë=~=ÑêÉÉ=ëí~åÇáåÖ=êÉí~áåáåÖ=ÄêáÅâ=ï~ää=
qÜÉ=ï~ää=~ééÉ~êë=íç=ëÜçï=åç=îáëì~ä=ëáÖåë=çÑ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ÇÉÑÉÅíë=çÑ
NK=fîó=~åÇ=çíÜÉê=îÉÖÉí~íáçå=çîÉê=íÜÉ=ï~ää=íç=ÄÉ=êÉãçîÉÇ
ïáíÜ=ÄìíêÉëëÉëI=ëí~åÇáåÖ=~ééêçñáã~íÉäó=NKMã=í~ääK
äÉ~å=çê=êçí~íáçåI=ëìÖÖÉëíáåÖ=íÜÉ=ëíêìÅíìêÉ=Ü~ë=ÄÉÉå=éÉêÑçêãáåÖ
OK=_ÉÇ=àçáåí=êÉáåÑçêÅÉãÉåí=ëìÅÜ=~ë=ÜÉäáÅ~ä=Ä~ä=êÉáåÑçêÅÉãÉåí=ëÜçìäÇ
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
ïÉää=ÇÉëéáíÉ=ä~Åâ=çÑ=îÉêíáÅ~ä=ãçîÉãÉåí=àçáåíëK
ÄÉ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇ=íç=Éåíê~åÅÉ=~êÉ~ë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=éêçíÉÅíáçå
qÜÉ=ï~ää=êÉí~áåë=íçéëçáä=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=d~êÇÉåë=~åÇ=~=åìãÄÉê=çÑ=ä~êÖÉ
íç=~êÉ~ë=éêçåÉ=íç=Ç~ã~ÖÉK
ã~íìêÉ=içåÇçå=mä~åÉ=íêÉÉë=~êÉ=áå=ÅäçëÉ=éêçñáãáíó=íç=íÜÉ=ï~ääK
içÅ~äáëÉÇ=Ç~ã~ÖÉ=íç=êÉåÇÉêI=é~êíáÅìä~êäó=~í=íÜÉ=Éåíê~åÅÉ=ÅçêåÉêëI
PK=oÉåÇÉê=íç=ÄÉ=àÉí=ï~ëÜÉÇ=íç=~ääçï=~=ÅçãéíÉåí=Åçåíê~Åíçê=íç=
ïÜáÅÜ=áë=ÇìÉ=íç=éêçÖêÉëëáîÉ=ÇÉíÉêáçê~íáçå=áå=íÜÉ=Ñçêã=çÑ=ãçáëíìêÉ
ÅçåÇìÅí=~=îáëì~ä=áåëéÉÅíáçå=~åÇ=äáÖÜí=Ü~ããÉê=í~é=íÜÉ=ëìÄëíê~íÉ=íç
qÜÉ=ï~ää=áë=êÉåÇÉêÉÇ=ïáíÜ=~=ãÉí~ä=ê~áäáåÖ=ãÉÅÜ~åáÅ~ääó=ÑáñÉÇ=íç
áåÖêÉëëI=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=ÅçãÄáå~íáçå=çÑ=áîó=éÉåÉíê~íáçå=~åÇ=Ñêçëí=~Åíáçå
ÜáÖÜäáÖÜí=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=ÜçääçïLÇÉä~ãáå~íÉÇ=êÉåÇÉê=~åÇ=Åê~ÅâáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ
íÜÉ=íçé=çÑ=íÜÉ=ï~ääI=ïÜáÅÜ=áå=éä~ÅÉë=áë=çîÉêÖêçïå=ïáíÜ=Ñçäá~ÖÉK
Ü~ë=éêçÇìÅÉÇ=Åê~ÅâáåÖ=~åÇ=ëìÄëÉèìÉåí=ÇÉä~ãáå~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=êÉåÇÉê
ëíêìÅíìêÉK
~åÇ=íÜáë=ïáää=ÉîÉåíì~ääó=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=ÄêÉ~â=Ççïå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ãçêí~ê
QK=tÜÉêÉ=êÉåÇÉê=áë=êÉãçîÉÇ=áåëéÉÅíáçå=çÑ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç==~ëëÉëë
^=ïÉ~íÜÉê=ÇÉí~áä=áë=éêÉëÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=Ñêçåí=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ï~ääI=ïáíÜ=~=
ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=ÄêáÅâïçêâK
êÉé~áêë=íç=ÄêáÅïçêâI=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ïÜÉêÉ=ÇÉÉãÉÇ=åÉÅÉëë~êó=ÜÉäáÅ~ä=Ä~ê
Ñä~í=êÉåÇÉêÉÇ=ëìêÑ~ÅÉ=íç=íÜÉ=êÉ~ê=íçé=ÉäÉî~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ï~ääK
êÉáåÑçêÅÉãÉåíK
12
qÜÉêÉ=áë=åç=ÉîáÇÉåÅÉ=çÑ=ïÉÉé=ÜçäÉëI=í~åâáåÖI=Äáíìãáåçìë=é~áåí
RK=^åíáJÖê~ÑÑáííá=Åç~íáåÖë=êÉÅçããÉåÇÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=êÉåÇÉê=áÑ=êÉí~áåÉÇ=çê
çê=ëáãáä~ê=ÇÉí~áäë=íç=êÉéÉä=ãçáëíìêÉ=~ï~ó=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=ï~ääK
ÄêáÅâïçêâK
SK=fåÅäìëáåÖ=çÑ=~=Çìê~ÄäÉ=ïÉ~íÜÉê=ÇÉí~áä=íç=íÜÉ=ï~ää=íçé=J=ÅçéáåÖ=íç
ÜÉäé=éêÉîÉåí=ÑìêíÜÉê=ïÉ~íÜÉêáåÖ=íç=íÜÉ=Ñ~ÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ï~ää=áå=ÑìíìêÉK
Pedestrian movement
Movement analysis
breeze, October 2009
In order to establish the requirements for
St Luke’s
a potential new entrance to the Gardens,
Church
Finsbury Leisure
breeze completed a series of site visits in
Old Street
Centre
October 2009 to complete a pedestrian
movement analysis.
Ironmonger Row Entrance
The pedestrian counts were taken at
Mitchell Street
02 October | 08.00-10.00
different times of day on both a week day
entrance
Helmet Row
and weekend.
entrance
The survey sought to understand how
people both arrive and depart from the
Gardens, and if moving through the space
which direction they have come from and
where they are going.
Ironmonger Row
The results illustrated that the most heavily
entrance
used entrance is from Mitchell Street, then
Ironmonger Row and Helmet Row.
The busiest pedestrian route is from Old
Radnor Street
Ironmonger
Street to the south, through the
Gardens
Row Baths
churchyard, entering the Gardens through
Mitchell Street, exiting through Ironmonger
Ironmonger Row Entrance
Pedestrian movement analysis summary
Row and then moving north along
Ironmonger Row or into Radnor Street.
02 October | 11.00-16.00
The survey highlights that the Gardens are
currently used as a thorough route, but with
entrances not positioned to relate to key
desire lines.
The diagrams opposite provide a
summary of the pedestrian analysis survey
completed. The survey times included:
02 October
11.00am to 16.00pm
06 October
12.30pm to 18.00pm
09 October
08.00am to 10.00am
Helmet Row Entrance
Mitchell Street Entrance
13
Helmet Row Entrance
02 October | 11.00-16.00
06 October | 12.30-18.00
09 October | 08.00-10.00
Ironmonger Row
Ironmonger Row Baths
Crime opportunity profile.
Toffee Park and Radnor Street are under
the ownership of Islington Greenspace.
In April 2007 the Metropolitan Police Crime
Prevention Design Advisor, Islington
The plan opposite illustrates the land
Borough Police completed a Crime
ownership designations of land adjoining
Opportunity Profile for the St Luke’s Area.
St Luke’s Gardens, and also indicates the
Radnor Street
As part of this study an assessment was
planning red line for the detailed planning
undertaken for St Luke’s Gardens. The
application.
report analysis and recommendations for
the Gardens confirm the site analysis and
Planning designations.
consultation work undertaken as part of
this detailed design report.
St Luke’s Gardens is located within the St
Luke’s Conservation Area [CA16]. Whilst St
Toffee Park
St Luke’s
The Metropolitan Police have also
Luke’s Church itself is Grade I Listed, the
Youth Club &
Gardens
provided more up to date statistics in
Gardens are not listed, with only one set
Adventure
relation to reported offences within the
of access Gates from Mitchell Street being
Playground
immediate vicinity of St Luke’s Gardens
Grade II Listed along with the boundary
for the period September 2007 to August
railings to the main churchyard. The
2008. This report indicates that reported
Gardens remain designated as consecrated
incidents occur on the streets surrounding
ground.
St Luke’s Gardens and churchyard, as
opposed to within the Garden’s
As the site is within the Conservation Area,
themselves. The more frequent reported
all trees within the Gardens are protected.
crime involves theft or criminal damage in
Helmet Row
relation to motor vehicles.
The restoration, repair and repainting of
the listed gates and piers at Mitchell Street
Land ownership.
are outwith the Client partners brief for
St Luke’s Gardens, as this work is being
The Freehold of St Luke’s Gardens is under
completed by the borough as part of the St
the jurisdiction of the Diocese of London,
Luke’s churchyard railings project.
Diocese of London
with Islington Greenspace having
Freehold
responsibility for management and
The site does not contain any
maintenance of the space.
nationally designated [protected] sites,
such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed
The Diocese also are freeholders for St
Buildings or Registered Parks and Gardens.
Luke’s Church and churchyard.
The site lies outside an Archaeological
Finsbury Leisure
Priority Area as defined by the council.
Centre
St Luke’s Close
The adjoining streets including Norman
Street, Mitchell Street and Ironmonger Row
Mitchell Street
are under the ownership, management and
maintenance of London Borough of
Islington Highways Department, whilst
BLACK LINE
Helmet Row between Norman Street to the
Diocese of London Freehold
north and Mitchell Street to the south is
including St Luke’s Gardens
owned by Islington Greenspace.
BLUE LINE
LBI Highways
GREEN LINE
LBI Greenspace
14
RED LINE
LSO St Luke’s
Planning application boundary
Historical context.
The history of St Luke’s Church.
to the existing ground level having being
extensively cleared.
St Luke’s Church was constructed as part
of of the Commission for Fifty New
Evidence from the air spade investigation
Churches which was established in 1711.
works noted possible grave stones stacked
1658
to the boundaries of the site.
The Church was built between 1722 -1733
by the Fifty New Churches Act Surveyors
The St Luke’s Conservation Plan by Purcell,
John James and Nicholas Hawkesmoor.
Miller Tritton notes that The period 1852-
The church itself designed by James, and
1871 ‘saw the landscaping and opening as
the obelisk spire by Hawkesmoor. The site
a public park of the disused northern burial
become consecrated on completion of the
ground’. During this time works were also
building works in 1733 and formed part of
completed to the Church itself. The
the Parish St Gile’s Cripplegate.
Ordnance Survey second edition map
dated 1894-6 shows the formal footpath
In 1964 the church was closed by the
arrangement which still exists today.
1746
Diocese of London, the roof was removed
and the church remained a ruin until the
In 2006 Islington Council and EC1 NDC
building and immediate church yard were
supported by the Arts Council England and
redeveloped by the London Symphony
the local community carried out
Orchestra into a concert venue, recording
horticultural improvement works,
studio and education resource. The
including new planting to the circular
building re-opened to the public in 2003
junction of the footpaths at the centre of
after seven years of archaeological,
the Gardens, along with paving and
heritage restoration and new
seating.
construction works. In 1998 the
Churchyard was refurbished following
Whist the Diocese of London closed St
1799
a successful bid to the Heritage Lottery
Luke’s Church in 1964, St Luke’s Gardens
Fund.
remains consecrated ground, and within
the jurisdiction of the Dicocese of London.
The history of St Luke’s Gardens
The wrought iron railings which surround
The Gardens are first noted on the 1746
the Churchyard as well as the main
Rocque’s Plan, along with St Luke’s
entrance to St Luke’s Gardens from
Church.
Mitchell Street have previously been
restored and are of historical significance.
The Gardens formed a northern churchyard
These railings are subject to a separate
extension to the Church. There is evidence
Grade II Listing from the Church itself.
1871
from the Museum of London Archaeologi-
cal work completed as part of the
These are the second set of boundary
redevelopment of the Church and its
railings to be installed, replacing the
immediate environs, and their subsequent
original boundary in 1852.
desk top study of the Gardens for this
project, that the site contains medieval
The railings which form the boundary to the
burials which are believed to still be in
Gardens are a 1970’s painted mild steel
place, with later Victorian burials closer
addition to the existing brickwork walls,
and these have no historical significance.
1894
St Luke’s Gardens.
Site location and context.
Site analysis.
Within the EC1 NDC area there are a series
The most visually striking feature of the
of public open spaces which are located
Gardens are the mature London Plane trees
across the regeneration area from Spa
which are located around the boundary of
Fields in the west to Finsbury Leisure
the space. The trees are approximately
Centre, St Luke’s Gardens and Radnor
25m in height with interlocking crowns
Street in the centre of St Luke’s to Bunhill
which form a continuous line of vegetation
Fields and Finsbury Square to the
in summer above a height of approximately
south-east.
7m.
The St Luke’s area of Islington is situated in
The trees, together with the obelisk spire
the south of the Borough, it’s boundary is
of St Luke’s Church form both a local
defined by the busy Old Street to the south,
landmark and point of orientation from
Central Street to the west, Bath Street to
surrounding open spaces including Radnor
the east and Lever Street to the north. St
Street Gardens and Finsbury Leisure
Luke’s Church, which is now home to the
Centre.
London Symphony
Orchestra, and St Luke’s Gardens directly
The space feels like a ‘green oasis’
to the north of the Church are at the centre
separate from the surrounding pedestrian
of the area, which is characterised by
streets by low retaining walls, railings and
dense residential development comprising
an under-storey of mixed shrub planting.
three main estates: Redbrick, Pleydell and
Wenlake. The Garden’s form part of what
This sense of separation from the
was essentially a church yard extension to
surrounding area is reinforced by the
St Luke’s Church, and the space is
poor frontages onto existing streets from
physically separated from the main
adjacent buildings, and in particular from
Churchyard and its immediate environs by
Ironmonger Row and Helmet Row. Both
the pedestrianised Mitchell Street.
Ironmonger Row Baths and Finsbury
Leisure Centre have blank brickwork
The Gardens are within the St Luke’s
facades which face the Gardens.
Conservation Area, and St Luke’s Church
is Grade I Listed. To the north of the
Currently only one entrance from Mitchell
Gardens is Ironmonger Row Baths, which
Street provides level access to the
have recently been Listed as Grade II. The
Gardens, with both the Ironmonger Row
western and eastern boundaries of the site
and Helmet Row entrances containing
are defined by two pedestrianised streets
three steps up from the adjacent street
Helmet Row and Ironmonger Row. To the
level, with a ramp to connect back down to
east is Finsbury Leisure Centre, with two
the internal level [which is broadly the same
large sports hall buildings with blank brick
as the surrounding street level].
façade’s facing the Gardens and busy
football pitches beyond fronting onto
There is a formal footpath layout which
Central Street. To the west Toffee Park
creates four areas of lawn, with a central
Youth Club and Adventure Playground
planting feature and beds at the centre of
separate the Garden’s from Radnor Street
the space. This geometry forms a visual
Gardens.
relationship to St Luke’s Church to the
south and Ironmonger Row Baths to the
storey shrub planting within the adjacent
Gardens, but heavy dog usage and a low
Overall, the Gardens provide a
north, with both buildings being civic in
borders, gives the Gardens a feeling of
specification of turf maintenance has led to
superb central space to the St Luke’s
scale. However, the boundary London
neglect and disrepair.
the lawn areas becoming patchy and of a
area with adjacent open spaces for
Plane tree planting does not relate to a
lower specification than when the turf was
sport and play providing a diverse
formal grid, and of the two step entrances
Internally, the boundary shrub beds are in
originally laid.
contrast to the quiet, civic garden
only Ironmonger Row is aligned on the
places bare, and some of the shrub
quality of St Luke’s Gardens. The space
central axis of the Gardens, with Helmet
planting is now over mature and poorly
The tarmac footpaths are generally in a
forms an important setting to both St
Row lying to the north.
maintained. This reinforces the first
fair condition, with some cracking of the
Luke’s Church and Ironmonger Row
impression from outside the Gardens as a
surfacing and misalignment of the stone
Baths.
The boundary walls are generally in poor
space which has lacked care and
edgings. There are a number of utilitarian
condition, with some areas of render
investment over a period of time.
timber benches along each footpath, many
In order to meet the Council and its
having failed, others cracked and
of which are nearing the end of their design
partners objectives, a series of
delaminated, which together with the
Works in 2006 to the central area of the
life and in need of replacement.
access and boundary treatment works
variety of painted finishes, occasional
Gardens and replacement of the lawns
are required to comply with current
graffiti and over mature areas of under
has helped to provide a focal point for the
legislation and to ensure that Gardens
become more easily accessible to all. 17
Proposed works.
Within the EC1 NDC area, and in
Both Islington and EC1 NDC
Package One
Package Three
particular St Luke’s there are only a
strategies for St Luke’s involve
Improve the external appearance of
To assess where new planting works
limited number of small parks and
improvements to existing parks,
the Gardens by renovating the
could be completed to the
open spaces, which are of particular
including making spaces more
boundary walls including options for
boundaries of the Gardens in
importance to local residents who
accessible to a wide range of
removal of render and addition of
relation to the access
live in high density and high rise
users, and providing a
new copings and repairs to railings.
improvements.
blocks with almost total absence of
complementary range of activities
private gardens. The area also has
and facilities.
Package Two
Package Four
a higher percentage of young people
Provide step free access from the
Re-surfacing works to the existing
and elderly people than the rest of
Improving links between adjacent
existing entrances from Helmet Row
footpaths.
the borough and many of the flats
spaces as part of the ‘Green Chain’
and Ironmonger Row. To
suffer from overcrowding.
concept is a key strategic delivery
investigate the creation of a new
objective for the Client partnership.
entrance into the Gardens to
The parks therefore are of immense
improve links to adjacent open
importance to local residents’
In response to the brief and initial
spaces.
quality of life and it is essential that
consultations with the Project
they offer safe, accessible and
Steering Group, Greenspace and
attractive amenities, creating links
NDC Officers, the proposed works
between each of the spaces
include the following packages:
enhances the sense of greenspace
in the area as a whole.
Consultation.
The project steering group.
2. Historically the Garden’s have suffered
The feasibility study design process has
from anti-social behaviour including drug
involved consultation with the Project
dealing, and therefore opening the Gardens
Steering Group which includes local
to 24 hour access would increase the risk
residents, Islington and EC1 NDC officers,
of anti-social behaviour
local stakeholders including LSO St Luke’s,
Toffee Park Adventure Playground and
3. The railings and boundary walls should
Youth Club and St Luke’s Primary School.
be retained as these help the Gardens feel
Three meetings have been held during the
visually connected to St Luke’s Church and
initial design development stages of the
the main churchyard.
project.
4. Currently St Luke’s Gardens is used
Following on from the works completed by
extensively by local dog walkers, as the
Atkins as part of the St Luke’s Framework
space is enclosed. If the railings were
Action Plan, the brief required investigation
removed, the concern would be that dog
of the potential removal of the boundary
walkers would return to Radnor Street
railings and associated large shrub
Gardens and cause increased conflicts with
planting to improve connections with
the use for play.
adjacent spaces.
5. In some areas the walls retain the
The scope and content of the brief for the
Gardens by over 600mm between the
project formed part of the agenda for
internal and external level, and therefore
Project Steering Group Number 01, which
some form of railing protection is required
was held on 01 October 2008, and
to protect the change in level. The
attended by local residents, LBI Officers
existing railings are therefore required in
and Rangers, EC1 Public Space Co-
some areas, and would need to be
ordinator, LSO representatives, EC1 Board
retained.
Members, and representatives from Toffee
Park Adventure Playground, Youth Club
Subsequent Steering Group meetings have
and St Luke’s Primary School.
reviewed the design development work as
well as discussing the nature and form of
The group discussed the suggestion from
the public consultation for the project.
the St Luke’s Framework Action Plan to
remove boundary railings and walls. The
Planning and conservation.
outcome of the discussion was that this
proposal should not be taken forward as
The emerging design proposals have been
part of the feasibility study for the following
the subject of discussion at two pre
reasons:
planning meetings on 09 February and 28
April with the Development Control case
1. The LSO have large vehicles for BBC
officer, conservation officer, principle tree
events which park adjacent to the Gardens
officer and access officer.
on Mitchell Street. Therefore, a retained
site boundary along Mitchell Street was
The key issues for the scheme to address
preferred on the grounds of health and
which emerged from these meetings are as
safety
follows:
19
Issues relating to trees.
are the preferred solution to protect
direct access for mopeds and cyclists
•
No tree removals would be permissible
the top of the walls, powder coated
is prevented, through either chicane
on the site due to both the quality and
to match the railing colour. This detail
barriers or other such means.
high visual amenity provided by the
relates to the existing churchyard and
trees on site.
cast coping details.
Greenspace maintenance issues.
•
All proposals must work around the
•
The metal copings as these are
•
New stone surfaces held within a mi-
existing trees, and require detailed
an addition to the existing walls will
cro-piled structure should be designed
planning consent as the trees are
require detailed planning consent.
to prevent removal. This require a fix-
protected through being within the St
•
Natural stone paving supported for
ing detail to a stainless steel frame.
Luke’s Conservation Area.
use on new surfaces as part of the
•
The proposed gates to the new
•
Impacts on the root protection areas to
entrance works. The type of stone
entrance from Norman Street to be a
be established within the planning
to be fit for purpose, samples to the
double leaf set of gates [mid-hinged
report for the proposed entrance
submitted to the local authority for
gates not preferred in this location] for
works.
approval.
ease of maintenance and structural
•
The principles of a micro-piled
•
New metalwork gates to relate
support
structure to support proposed paving
in design to the existing boundary
•
Any internal pedestrian barriers
was agreed, so as to reduce extent
railings of the gardens.
designed into the paving to be set into
and depths of excavation where ever
•
The gates forming part of the pro-
sockets for ease of future installation
possible within the root protection
posed entrance to Norman street
or removal.
zones.
should ideally be folding gates, so that
•
The loadings on the micro-piled
•
Paving directory to the base of
there are no gate posts within the new
structure to be able to support an LBI
individual trees would be unlikely to
opening of the wall
street cleaning materials
gain permission.
•
A detailed planning consent is not
•
Full details of the proposed method of
•
A method statement would need to be
required to remove the existing render
construction to be submitted for ap-
submitted to the Principle Tree Officer
to the boundary walls and repair the
proval by Greenspace
prior to the commencement of any
brickwork. Ideally a lime render to be
•
A lime render applied to the existing
works on site
re-applied to the wall.
walls would be preferred, with an anti-
graffiti coating if possible
Conservation Issues.
Inclusive design and accessibility issues.
•
Softworks design would be dealt with
•
Where entrance works are proposed,
•
The removal of the existing steps to
through a planning condition for the
the language of the brickwork and
improve accessibility is supported for
submission of species details
render boundary walls are to be
Ironmonger Row and Helmet Row.
•
Chicane barriers within the Norman
retained, with new or wider openings
•
The off-setting of the Helmet Row
Street entrance could be added later
within the wall being permissible.
entrance to the north of the existing
if there became an issue with mopeds
•
Retaining the existing entrance
entrance is acceptable as prevents a
or cyclists
positions is not sacrosanct, as the
direct route being created across the
existing entrances do not all align with
Gardens between Helmet Row and
the grid of the footpath system.
Ironmonger Row
•
Cast metal detailing to form the
•
The proposed entrance to Norman
ends of the walls at new or enlarged
Street requires careful consideration
openings would be permissible as this
as the entrance is directly to a shared
takes reference from the original cast
surface highway.
metal copings and panels to the main
•
Consideration to be given to ensur-
churchyard railings.
ing that the gate openings are wide
•
With regard to the proposed works to
enough [ie 1200mm] to allow for full
the boundary walls, new metal copings
accessibility, but also ensuring that
20
01
03
Do you support the proposal for a new
Do you think the proposals will help make the
entrance into St Luke’s Gardens adjacent to
Gardens and adjacent streets feel safer?
Public Consultation.
Ironmonger Row Baths?
The public consultation for the project has
NO
involved the following:
6.7%
NO
MAYBE
13.3%
•
Placement of display boards within the
6.7%
Gardens for four weeks in March
•
Distribution of flyers and question-
naires to households and businesses
in the vicinity of St Luke’s Gardens
•
Consultation event in Finsbury Leisure
Centre and St Luke’s Gardens in
March 2009.
The following is a summary of both the
MAYBE
public consultation event held in Finsbury
36.0%
Leisure Centre on Thursday 05 March 2009
YES
and completed questionnaires returned to
YES
86.6%
LBI Greenspace from the postal distribution
50.7%
of flyer and questionnaires to advertise the
public consultation event.
A full breakdown of both questionnaires
02
04
and feedback forms is also provided in the
Do you think that the proposals will improve
Overall, do you support the proposed
overall consultation report submitted as
access to the Gardens?
improvements to St Luke’s Gardens?
a supporting document with the detailed
planning application.
NO
NO
A total of 49 questionnaires were returned
6.75%
9.6%
MAYBE
to Islington Greenspace, and 29 feedback
6.75%
forms completed as part of the
MAYBE
consultation – a total of 78 responses [note
12.0%
that not all questionnaire/feedback returns
answered all questions].
The responses illustrated opposite, are a
complete summary of both the
questionnaires and consultation event.
YES
YES
86.5%
78.0%
21
A3 poster advertising the consultation event
Four page postal flyer and questionnaire
Consultation boards placed on the railings along Mitchell Street for 4 weeks
22
Design proposals.
Public consultation.
of the survey:
micro-piles, so as to reduce the extent of
•
The Ironmonger Row entrance width
excavation and potential disturbance within
The key issues which the Stage D detailed
has been reduced from 2.4m to 2.0m
the root protection areas of adjacent trees.
design work has sought to address are as
to avoid fibrous roots present to Plane
follows:
Tree number 16
The existing planting beds slope up
•
The Helmet Row entrance has been
towards the boundary walls, and as the
Mopeds and cyclists
relocated to the north of the existing
level of these can only be marginally
Border planting
Some concerns were expressed with
entrance due to the presence of a large
adjusted, low retaining walls would be
beds
regard to whether opening a new entrance
structural tree root adjacent to, and
required. However, this would require
would encourage mopeds and cyclists to
beneath the existing stepped access.
further excavations. Therefore, the
Ironmonger Row
enter the gardens as a short cut across
The proposed entrance width has also
proposal is to use ‘L’ section stone slabs
the space to the Mitchell Street entrance.
been reduced, and the seating plinth to
along the edges of the footpath, held within
Ironmonger Row
Likewise the same issue could occur from
the base of Plane Tree 05 deleted, and
the steep frame, with an upstand to act as
Existing entrance with steps and ramp access.
Ironmonger Row across to Helmet Row.
replaced with a simple stone bench.
a retaining edge.
•
The Norman Street proposed entrance
Therefore, the scheme has been developed
has been reduced in size.
to respond to these concerns in the
following ways:
The proposed works for each of the four
•
Internal metal barriers, integrated into
packages are illustrated in the following
the design of the Norman Street
section of the report. This report should be
•
entrance within the Gardens. These
read in-conjunction with the detailed
will continue to allow ease of
planning application drawings, access and
access for pedestrians and wheelchair/
environmental statement which form part of
Border planting
beds
mobility scooter users, but prevent
the detailed planning submission.
Ironmonger Row
direct access for mopeds and cyclist
at speed.
Entrance works concepts.
Ironmonger Row
•
The Helmet Row new entrance has
Proposed entrance concept with level access
been relocated north of the exist-
The existing entrances at Helmet Row
stone paving, with ‘L’ section stone
ing access due to the presence
and Ironmonger Row currently include
retaining edge integral to the paved surface.
of structural tree roots around the
three steps up from the surrounding street
existing footpath access. This has
level, and then a ramp down to the internal
the benefit of offsetting the entrance
footpath, as the level of both highway and
alignment from Ironmonger Row. The
internal footpath are generally similar.
existing central planting feature also
prevents a clear straight path from one
The proposal therefore is to remove the
entrance to the other.
steps and ramps, and construct a new level
•
The gates to both Ironmonger Row
stone footpath to form a new entrance.
and Helmet Row entrance as designed
as double leaf gates, so that only one
The existing entrances are generally
leaf is generally open during the day.
900mm in width, and therefore to meet
current design guidance, the entrance
Air spade investigations.
widths are also proposed to be widened.
Following the completion of the air spade
The construction of the new surfaces will
investigations, the following design
involve fixing stone slabs on a steel
revisions have been undertaken as a result
structure which is supported on
Ironmonger Row
Existing section through step and ramp access
23
Package 1
Boundary wall works
Boundary wall works
Option 1A | Remove render/clean brickwork
Option 1B | Remove render/repair brickwork/new lime render
Option 1 | metal copings
The proposed boundary wall works include
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
the removal of the existing cementitous
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
render which has delaminated in places
^ii=bufpqfkd=o^fifkdp=^ka=sboqf`^i=mlpq
^ii=bufpqfkd=o^fifkdp=^ka=sboqf`^i=mlpq
prmmloqp=ql=_b=`ib^kba=altkI=obm^foba
prmmloqp=ql=_b=`ib^kba=altkI=obm^foba
^ka=obm^fkqba=ql=j^q`e=pq=irhbDp=`ero`e
^ka=obm^fkqba=ql=j^q`e=pq=irhbDp=`ero`e
and is generally in a poor condition. This
o^fifkdp=^dobba=`lilro=tfqe=`lkpbos^qflk
o^fifkdp=^dobba=`lilro=tfqe=`lkpbos^qflk
lccf`bo=^ka=bkdifpe=eboqf^db
lccf`bo=^ka=bkdifpe=eboqf^db
kÉï=éêçÑáäÉÇ=ãáäÇ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=QTRñPMãã=ëÉÅíáçå=J
kÉï=éêçÑáäÉÇ=ãáäÇ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=QTRñPMãã=ëÉÅíáçå=J
is due to the lack of any drainage to the
iÉåÖíÜë=î~êó=íç=ëìáí=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ê~áäáåÖ=ëÉííáåÖ=çìíK==
iÉåÖíÜë=î~êó=íç=ëìáí=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ê~áäáåÖ=ëÉííáåÖ=çìíK==
`çéáåÖ=éêçîáÇÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ï~íÉêéêççÑ=áåëìä~íÉÇ=ãÉãÄê~åÉ=ÄÉåÉ~íÜ
`çéáåÖ=éêçîáÇÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ï~íÉêéêççÑ=áåëìä~íÉÇ=ãÉãÄê~åÉ=ÄÉåÉ~íÜ
~åÇ=êìÄÄÉê=é~ÅâÉêë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ëìééçêí=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
~åÇ=êìÄÄÉê=é~ÅâÉêë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ëìééçêí=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
~åÇ=ÅçéáåÖK==^ää=ãÉí~äïçêâ=éçïÇÉê=Åç~íÉÇ=gìåáéÉê=dêÉÉå
~åÇ=ÅçéáåÖK==^ää=ãÉí~äïçêâ=éçïÇÉê=Åç~íÉÇ=gìåáéÉê=dêÉÉå
back of the retaining wall, or the presence
aÉí~áä=NWQ
aÉí~áä=NWQ
of weep holes. The existing brickwork will
be repaired, and where possible a vertical
drainage barrier will be inserted along the
inside face of the retaining wall [subject to
further tree root position exploration]. New
metal copings will be installed [taking
^iilt^k`b=ql=`ib^k=_of`htlohI
obm^fo=_olhbk=_of`hpI=p`o^m=lrq
bufpqfkd=jloq^o=^ka=obmlfkq=^ii
oÉé~áêë=ïÜÉêÉ=êÉåÇÉê=
bumlpba=_of`htloh=c^`bp
reference from the cast metal copings
Ü~ë=Ñ~áäÉÇ=ÇìÉ=íç=
ÅçêêçëáçåK
^iilt^k`b=clo=ebif`^i=_^o=
pqfq`efkd=tebob=obnrfoba=ql
^ééÉ~ê~åÅÉ=çÑ=êÉåÇÉê=
which form the base of the railings to the
obfkclo`b=qeb=t^ii
ïáää=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=ÇÉéÉåÇ~åí=
oÉåÇÉê=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=íç=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=íç
ìéçå=äÉîÉä=çÑ=Åçêêçëáçå
ÄÉ=Å~êÉÑìääó=ÄêçâÉå=çìí=~åÇ=êÉãçîÉÇ
main churchyard] and due to the high
xbëíáã~íÉÇ=~í=NRãã=íÜáÅâåÉëëz
probability of the loss of the front face of
qóéáÅ~ä=éêçéçëÉÇ=ï~ää=ëÉÅíáçå=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
qóéáÅ~ä=éêçéçëÉÇ=ï~ää=ëÉÅíáçå=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
léíáçå=qïç=ö=mêçÑáäÉ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=ö=léíáçå=_=J=bñéçëÉÇ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=_êáÅâïçêâ
léíáçå=qïç=ö=mêçÑáäÉ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=ö=léíáçå=`=J=m~íÅÜÉÇ=êÉåÇÉê
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
the brickwork when the existing render is
removed, the walls will be rendered with a
bñáëíáåÖ=NMMuQR=f=_É~ã
îÉêíáÅ~ä=éçëí=ëÉí=áåíç=
ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄêáÅâïçêâ=ï~ää
lime render [Option B]. Anti-graffiti
^ii=bufpqfkd=o^fifkdp=^ka=sboqf`^i=mlpq
prmmloqp=ql=_b=`ib^kba=altkI=obm^foba
^ka=obm^fkqba=ql=j^q`e=pq=irhbDp=`ero`e
coatings will also be applied.
o^fifkdp=^dobba=`lilro=tfqe=`lkpbos^qflk
lccf`bo=^ka=bkdifpe=eboqf^db
kÉï=éêçÑáäÉÇ=ãáäÇ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=QTRñPMãã=ëÉÅíáçå=J
iÉåÖíÜë=î~êó=íç=ëìáí=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ê~áäáåÖ=ëÉííáåÖ=çìíK==
`çéáåÖ=éêçîáÇÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ï~íÉêéêççÑ=áåëìä~íÉÇ=ãÉãÄê~åÉ=ÄÉåÉ~íÜ
~åÇ=êìÄÄÉê=é~ÅâÉêë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ëìééçêí=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
The graphics opposite illustrate the three
~åÇ=ÅçéáåÖK==^ää=ãÉí~äïçêâ=éçïÇÉê=Åç~íÉÇ=gìåáéÉê=dêÉÉå
aÉí~áä=NWQ
options discussed as part of the design
^ii=bufpqfkd=o^fifkdp=^ka=sboqf`^i=mlpq
prmmloqp=ql=_b=`ib^kba=altkI=obm^foba
^ka=obm^fkqba=ql=j^q`e=pq=irhbDp=`ero`e
development process. Option 1A was
o^fifkdp=^dobba=`lilro=tfqe=`lkpbos^qflk
lccf`bo=^ka=bkdifpe=eboqf^db
K
U
kÉï=éêçÑáäÉÇ=ãáäÇ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=QTRñPMãã=ëÉÅíáçå=J
agreed as not an ideal solution as the
N
V
iÉåÖíÜë=î~êó=íç=ëìáí=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ê~áäáåÖ=ëÉííáåÖ=çìíK==
`çéáåÖ=éêçîáÇÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ï~íÉêéêççÑ=áåëìä~íÉÇ=ãÉãÄê~åÉ=ÄÉåÉ~íÜ
~åÇ=êìÄÄÉê=é~ÅâÉêë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ëìééçêí=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÄêáÅâïçêâ
~åÇ=ÅçéáåÖK==^ää=ãÉí~äïçêâ=éçïÇÉê=Åç~íÉÇ=gìåáéÉê=dêÉÉå
cementitous render is bonded to the brick,
and its removal will lead to the loss of
the front face of the brick, creating future
weathering issues for the brickwork if not
sealed. Option 1C illustrates the
installation of new copings, but retention of
the existing render.
qóéáÅ~ä=éêçéçëÉÇ=ï~ää=ëÉÅíáçå=íç=kçêã~å=píêÉÉíLeÉäãÉí=oçï
léíáçå=qïç=ö=mêçÑáäÉ=ëíÉÉä=ÅçéáåÖ=ÇÉí~áä=ö=léíáçå=^=J=bñáëíáåÖ=êÉåÇÉê=
pÅ~äÉ=N=íç=NM
ao^cq=clo=`ljjbkq
ÅäáÉåí
éêçàÉÅí
Option 1B has been agreed with LBI
i_f=dêÉÉåëé~ÅÉ=ö=b`N=ka`
pí=iìâÉDë=d~êÇÉåë
Option 1C | Retain wall as existing, with new metal copings
Çê~ïáåÖ=íáíäÉ
åçíÉë
ëí~íìë
Officers as the preferred way forward,
aç=åçí=ëÅ~äÉ=Ñêçã=íÜáë=Çê~ïáåÖ=xé~éÉê=çê=ÉäÉÅíêçåáÅ=ÅçéózK
qÜáë=Çê~ïáåÖ=áë=ÅçéóêáÖÜí=çÑ=ÄêÉÉòÉ=ä~åÇëÅ~éÉ=~êÅÜáíÉÅíë=~åÇ=áíë=ÅçåíÉåí=~åÇ=áåíÉåÇÉÇ=Ñçê=íÜáë=ëáíÉ=çåäóK
mêçéçëÉÇ=ï~ää=ÑáåáëÜÉë=çéíáçå=O=
pâÉíÅÜ=aÉëáÖå
qÜÉ=Åçåíê~Åíçê=íç=ÅÜÉÅâ=~ää=ÇáãÉåëáçåë=çå=ëáíÉ=~åÇ=êÉéçêí=ÇáëÅêÉé~åÅáÉë=íç=íÜÉ=ä~åÇëÅ~éÉ=~êÅÜáíÉÅí=Ñçê=
Åä~êáÑáÅ~íáçå=éêáçê=íç=éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖK
Ç~íÉ
^ää=~ëéÉÅíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=ïÜÉêÉ=áåÇáÅ~íÉÇ=~ë=ÄÉáåÖ=çíÜÉê=Åçåëìäí~åíDë=ïçêâI=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=áãéçêíÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜ~í
ëÅ~äÉ
åìãÄÉê
êÉîáëáçå
Åçåëìäí~åíDë=Çê~ïáåÖëK==oÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=ã~ÇÉ=íç=íÜÉ=áåÇáîáÇì~äDë=Çê~ïáåÖ=Ñçê=Ñìää=ÇÉí~áäëI=ÇáãÉåëáçåëI=
ëÉííáåÖ=çìí=~åÇ=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ~íáçå=ÇÉí~áäëK
and this detailed planning application
tÜÉêÉ=íÜáë=Çê~ïáåÖ=áë=ÄÉáåÖ=éêáåíÉÇ=Äó=~=íÜáêÇ=é~êíó=Ñçê=ìëÉI=áí=áë=íÜÉáê=ëçäÉ=êÉëéçåëáÄáäáíó=íç=ÅÜÉÅâ=íÜ~í=~åó
j~êÅÜ=OMMV
N|NM=]=^N
TRM|ph|RU
ÉäÉÅíêçåáÅ=Ñçêã~í=éêáåíÉÇ=Åçåí~áåë=íÜÉ=ïÜçäÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=áåÑçêã~íáçå=Åçåí~áåÉÇ=çå=íÜÉ=Çê~ïáåÖI=~åÇ=áë=ÅçêêÉÅí=
ïÜÉå=Åçãé~êÉÇ=íç=~å=çêáÖáå~ä=é~éÉê=ÅçéóK
ÄêÉÉòÉ ÅÜ~êíÉêÉÇ=ä~åÇëÅ~éÉ=~êÅÜáíÉÅíë
includes the installation of new metal
NNM=~ÄÉêÇÉÉå=ÜçìëÉ==OOJOQ=ÜáÖÜÄìêó=ÖêçîÉ==äçåÇçå==åR=OÉ~==í=HQQxMzOM=TPRV=OMMM==É=Åçåí~Åí]ÄêÉÉòÉJä~åÇëÅ~éÉKÅçKìâ
copings as detailed. Refer to the
planning drawings for details.
24
Package 2
Ironmonger Row Entrance
The works include removing
the existing steps and ramp
access and providing a new
level access stone footpath in
the same location as the
existing entrance, including
new gates, railings and
associated softworks.
Site clearance and demolitions
New construction works
•
Remove existing gates and associated
•
Re-build existing length of brickwork
posts and remove off site
wall 337.5mm thick on new concrete
•
Remove existing railing sections and
foundations, keyed into existing brick
associated posts and remove off site
bond.
•
Take down existing brickwork bound-
•
Install new sections of mild steel verti-
ary wall to width of proposed new
cal bar railing, fixed with uprights into
entrance and remove arisings off site
new brickwork wall construction and
•
Carefully break out existing
set out to tie into existing boundary
•
surfacing [including edgings], hand dig
railings.
to remove sub-base and remove
•
Install new double leaf entrance
•
arisings off site
gates – generous allowance for gates
•
Carefully break out existing concrete
designed in association with artist/
steps including any sub-base if present
metalwork fabricator.
and remove arisings off site
•
Install new stainless steel frame
•
Carefully hand dig existing ground
structure to support new paving’s on
either side of existing footpath level
micropiles to engineers details
to formation level of new surfacing,
•
Install new limestone paving into stain-
remove arisings off site.
less steel frame to form new pedes-
•
Allowance for removal of existing
trian footpath and integral retaining
mature shrub planting adjacent to en-
edge to adjacent soil in planting beds.
trance – no stump grinding permitted,
All slabs to be cut to size in L section
arisings to be taken off site.
to form retaining wall.
Above
•
Carefully remove existing stone edg-
•
Allowance for new litter bins and LBI
Proposed view of Ironmonger Row
entrance from within the Gardens
ings to adjacent footpath to allow for
signage in stainless steel frame.
new works tie in details
Left
•
Install new cast metal threshold and
Existing view of Ironmonger Row
•
Where required adjust levels of existing
wall end detail.
entrance from within the Gardens
tarmac footpaths to tie into new lime-
•
Allowance for making good junctions
stone pavings.
with existing highway surface outside
•
Remove existing litter bin, recondition
the Gardens and existing tarmac foot-
and replace on site
paths within the Gardens
25
Package 2
Helmet Row Entrance
The works include removing
Site clearance and demolitions
•
Allowance for removal of existing
tion and set out to tie into existing
the existing steps and ramp
mature shrub planting adjacent to
boundary railings.
access and providing a new
•
Remove existing gates and associated
entrance
•
Install new double leaf entrance gates
posts and remove off site
•
Carefully remove existing stone
as detailed
level access stone footpath
•
Remove existing railing sections and
edgings to adjacent footpath to allow
•
Install new stainless steel frame
wider than the existing
associated posts and remove off site
for new works tie in details
structure to support new paving’s on
entrance, including new gates
•
Take down existing brickwork
•
Where required adjust levels of
micro-piles to engineers details
boundary wall to width of proposed
existing tarmac footpaths to tie into
•
Install new limestone paving into
stone seating, gates and
new entrance and remove arisings off
new limestone pavings.
stainless steel frame to form new
railings.
site
•
Remove existing litter bin, recondition
pedestrian footpath and integral
•
Carefully break out existing
and replace on site
retaining edge to adjacent soil in
surfacing [including edgings], hand
planting beds All slabs to be cut to
dig to remove sub-base and remove
New construction works
size in L section to form retaining wall.
arisings off site
•
Install new cast metal threshold and
•
Carefully break out existing con-
wall end detail.
•
Re-build existing brickwork wall
crete steps including any sub-base if
•
New hedge and fern planting to beds
337.5mm thick on new concrete
present and remove arisings off site
on either side of the entrance
foundations, keyed into existing brick
Right
•
Carefully hand dig existing ground
bond.
Proposed view of Helmet Row
either side of existing footpath level
entrance from outside the Gardens
•
Install new sections of mild steel
to formation level of new surfacing,
Below
vertical bar railing, fixed with uprights
remove arisings off site.
Existing view of Helmet Row
into new brickwork wall construc-
entrance from outside the Gardens
Package 3
Package 4
Boundary planting
Footpath re-surfacing
Entrance planting proposals
Bulb planting
Footpath re-surfacing works
In association with the proposed entrance
The existing shrub beds along the
Asplenium scolopendrium
The existing footpaths are constructed
works hard landscape surfacing works, it
boundary of the site with Ironmonger Row
from tarmac surfacing and stone
is proposed to introduce new softworks to
have large areas of bare soil between
edgings [generally laid with an up-stand of
either side of the entrances to reinforce the
shrubs. It is likely to be difficult to
50mm]. In some areas the edgings have
entrance positions, and distinguish them
establish new shrubs within the beds to
become loose and therefore mis-aligned.
from the more informal shrub under-storey
provide a consistent ground cover due to
The surfacing is generally in a satisfactory
layer which surrounds the site.
the Plane trees. However, woodland bulb
condition, but in some areas is uneven and
planting is likely to be more successful to
beginning to break up where the edgings
The proposed planting design includes
establish and will provide seasonal interest
are not firmly in place. The new entrance
new low yew hedging which will be cut into
and colour. Year round flowering plants
works will require disturbance to the
formal clipped blocks. Within the centre of
were one of the items raised through the
existing footpath to provide a tie in detail,
these hedging blocks, evergreen ferns will
public consultation.
and will require patch repairs to the existing
be planted to provide colour and textural
tarmac.
contrast.
The soil in the beds, particularly directly at
the base of the trees is likely to need
Therefore the proposal is to reinstate the
The fern planting takes reference from the
improvement to successfully establish
stone edgings where required, and provide
ecological survey completed as part of the
bulbs, and soil testing of the existing
a new tarmacadam wearing course to the
St Luke’s Church restoration, where a
topsoil is recommended prior to developing
existing footpath. Further survey works are
number of species were noted within the
a detailed planting strategy for the borders
required to establish whether areas will
church walls and churchyard.
outside of the entrance planting proposed.
require excavation and new construction.
However, the general principle will be to
Ferns are likely to thrive within the shady
re-surface the existing footpaths.
understorey of the London Planes.
Evergreen fern species to include:
Blechnum spicant
Asplenium scolopendrium
Asplenium scolopendrium ‘Crispum Moly’
Blechnum spicant
Dryopteris affinis ‘Polydactyla Dadds’
Dryopteris cycadina AGM
Polystichum acleatum
Polystichum acleatum
