Willow House and gardens from the west quent appeal, the Council reconsidered the status of Willow House in the light of the recently-introduced '30 year rule', and served a Building Preservation Notice in 1992. The appeal inspector took strong account of the character of the building and its protected status (although only temporary and subject to confirmation) underthe BPN; when he visited the site he asked why the nearby Salix and White House were not also listed. The appeal (Q0S0S/ A/91/ 184260) was dismissed, as was the appellants' claim for costs. Not long afterwards, Willow House was listed II*, because of the quality of its interior, and SalixanclWhite House were listed grade II. Settingsaved In the meantime. the outline permission for the single house on the tennis court had been renewed again, and in 1994 a new application for a single dwelling to the west (avoiding impact on the site of nature conservation interest) was submitted. This was refused and dismissed on appeal in 1995. This appeal decision (T/ APP/Q0505/ A/94/24257 /P7) placed the emphasis firmly on protecting the setting of Willow House: " ... Willow House, which is listed grade II*, was designed to have a spacious setting to set off its uncompromising modern design. Its principal rooms and windows face south .. , but it seems to me that the continuum of garden space belonging to it needs to include the unobstructed extension to the west as pa rt of its setting. As it is, the setting will be compromised to some extent by the erection of the approved house to the east, but this makes the western area of the garden even more imprntant to the setting of Willow House .... The erection of the proposed single 12 storey house would, in my view, seriously impair the setting of Willow House. Although the present scheme is reduced in number from the previous proposal which was dismissed on appeal, it would still by implication, if not by any boundary marking, occupy the garden space forming pa rt of the appeal site, and would effectively undermine the relationship of Willow House to the wilderness; the listed house would thus be cramped in its setting .." Problemswithanoutlineapproval The Council had fought off the pressure to develop on the garden to the west of Willow House, which is a vital part of its setting and the conservation area, but we were still faced with the prospect of a new building on the very small but prominent tennis court site immediately to the east. The sketch details provided with the renewals had not been inspiring in their design approach, and the reserved matters submitted (and approved) in 1994 highlighted the difficulty of accommodating any new building satisfactorily on the site: a classic case of the clanger of an outline 'reel line' approval on a sensitive site! New house De Stijl as built 'Keepingin keeping'with theModern Movement? The detailed scheme had been prepared on behalf of the vendor of the plot. The purchaser prepared sketches of her own, then engaged her own architect. This gave a new opportunity to try to get a building of genuine quality and presence to meet the challenges of the site and its context. With our encouragement, Ralph Carpenter of Moclece Architects produced a design of great simplicity and clarity, with a principal living volume, and lower bedroom (projecting forward clown the garden) and garage wings alongside to the west. The main feature of the building was a spectacular and carefully considered picture window facing south. The client wanted a house of 1930s Modem Movement character; some consultees argued in favour of a truly contemporary approach, but this site was so small and so close to Willow House that any contrnst of architectural idiom would have made the new building even more intrusive. I felt that thatthe approved scheme was as good as we could have hoped to achieve, given that the site was too small for any truly satisfactory development. Much to my regret, the client and her architect parted company, and I found myself dealing with a designer/builder producing a series of amended plans. Instead of the detailed development of a strong design concept, we were faced with a progressive dilution of key elements-for example the subdivisions of the picture window (the boldest feature of the design). Perhaps most damaging to the clarity and quality of the building was the client's decision to change her bedroom layout. This led to the bedroom wing wrapping round the front of the living area which upset the approved scheme's clear expression of separate volumes, and 'framing' of the picturewindowbywhitewall. With the architect no longer on the scene to· argue for his concept (or adapt it to meet the new requirements without losing quality), there was little hope of persuading the client to keep strictly to Context65March 2000
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=