HIGHGATE NEW TOWN PHASE 1, CAMDEN Community-led Conservation Guidance for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area and Application for Grade II* Listing

HIGHGATE NEW TOWN PHASE 1, CAMDEN
Community-led Conservation Guidance for inclusion in the Dartmouth
Park Conservation Area and Application for Grade II* Listing
Prepared by: The Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) Working Group
& Tom Davies (with input from Prof. Mark Swenarton) March 2020

CONTENTS
SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 9
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 12
1.1 Project background.......................................................................................... 12
1.2 Location & Topology........................................................................................ 12
1.3 Summary Statement of Significance................................................................ 16
2 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 22
2.2 Aims and Objectives........................................................................................ 22
2.3 Process............................................................................................................ 22
2.4 Workshops and Consultation........................................................................... 24
2.5 Sources............................................................................................................ 24
2.6 Assessment Criteria......................................................................................... 24
2.7 Assumptions and Limitations........................................................................... 25
3 REGULATION AND POLICY............................................................................... 25
3.1 Regulation........................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Policy............................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Guidance from Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA)............................. 28
3.4 DPNF Neighbourhood Plan.............................................................................. 29
3.5 Other Guidance................................................................................................ 29
4 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE........................................................................ 32
4.2 Background to HNT.......................................................................................... 32
4.3 Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT).................................................................. 33
4.4 Peter Tàbori..................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Density & Execution......................................................................................... 40
4.6 From building to street..................................................................................... 41
4.7 Urban Renewal and Community....................................................................... 48
4.8 The Hill-town at HNT........................................................................................ 54
4.9 Life at HNT....................................................................................................... 54
4.10 Setting, Views and Patterns of Use............................................................... 58
5 HERITAGE VALUES............................................................................................ 62
5.2 Evidential Value................................................................................................ 62
5.3 Historical value................................................................................................ 63
5.4 Aesthetic Value................................................................................................ 64
5.5 Communal Value.............................................................................................. 64
5.6 Group Value..................................................................................................... 65
6 THE RESIDENTS WORKING GROUP WORKSHOPS......................................... 66
6.2 Basis of Approach............................................................................................ 66
6.3 Buildings and External Space.......................................................................... 66
6.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation............................................. 67
6.5 Technical installation .......................................................................................68

6.6 Amenity space and community events.............................................................68
6.7 Gardening and Pruning....................................................................................68
6.8 Refuse and Recycling...................................................................................... 68
6.9 Signage and maps............................................................................................ 68
6.10 Cooperation..................................................................................................69
6.11 Maintaining and Enhancing Highgate New Town’s Setting............................69
6.12 Parameters for Acceptable Impact................................................................69
7 DRAFT CONSERVATION GUIDANCE AND POLICIES.......................................72
7.2 Basis of approach............................................................................................72
7.3 Buildings and external space...........................................................................72
7.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation.............................................72
7.5 Views and visual amenity.................................................................................73
7.6 Technical installation (heating, lighting and water)...........................................73
7.7 Amenity space and community events.............................................................73
7.8 Gardening and Pruning....................................................................................73
7.9 Refuse and Recycling.......................................................................................73
7.10 Signage and maps.........................................................................................73
7.11 Cooperation...................................................................................................73
8 ADOPTION & REVIEW.........................................................................................73
9 APPLICATION FOR GRADE II* LISTING.............................................................76
9.2 Summary of impact at HNT................................................................................80
9.3 Justification for Grade II* Listing.......................................................................80
9.4 Architectural Interest.........................................................................................80
9.5 Historic Interest.................................................................................................81
9.6 Aesthetic merits................................................................................................84
9.7 Communal Value...............................................................................................85
9.8 Selectivity and National Interest........................................................................85
9.9 State of repair....................................................................................................88
10 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................89
11 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................90
APPENDIX 1 RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE......................................... 93
APPENDIX 2 LISTING BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL (...) INTEREST................. 102
APPENDIX 3 WORKSHOP POSTERS............................................................... 103
TABLES
Table 1: Heritage Asset Significance....................................................................25
Table 2: Proposed Conservation Policies for inclusion in DPCA......................74
Cover - Sketch of Play Area (Peter Tábori)
Previous- Fig. 1: Residents at evening, HNT (TD)

FIGURES
Cover- Play Square Drawing (PT)
Figure 1 Residents at evening, HNT (Tom Davies)
Figure 2 Cooks Camden HNT Playsquare at centre of Cluster (Martin Charles RIBA)
Figure 3 London Borough of Camden
Figure 4 Hampstead Ward and Location of HNT
Figure 5 HNT Playsquare (Tim Crocker/Mark Swenarton TC/MS)
Figure 6 Roof plan of original design for entire site showing four clusters (PT/LBC)
Figure 7 Sandstone Place (TC/MS)
Figure 8 Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD)
Figure 9 Lulot Gardens from the steps (TC/MS)
Figure 10 DPCA Sub-Areas (LBC)
Figure 11 DPCA Townscape Appraisal (LBC)
Figure 12 Lulot Gardens toward Highgate Cemetery (TD)
Figure 13 Polygon Road (TD)
Figure 14 View from Bridle Way into the Greens (TD)
Figure 15 Cooks Camden Sketch showing environmental strategy (PT/LBC)
Figure 16 Lower maisonette, looking from dining to living area and balcony (TC/MS
Figure 17 Lower maisonette, paired doors to bedrooms (TC/MS)
Figure 18 3 Storey house, kitchen from living room (TC/MS)
Figure 19 Axonometric of cluster showing pedestrian streets and play square (PT/LBC)
Figure 20 Civita di Bagnoregio (Stephanie Bower)
Figure 21 Informal Square at Sandstone Place (TD)
Figure 22 Informal Square, Seggiano, Tuscany (TD)
Figure 23 External Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD)
Figure 24 External Stairs, Arcidosso, Tuscany (TD)
Figure 25 Egg and Spoon Race, Stoneleigh Terrace (Jo McCafferty)
Figure 26 Evening at the Greens (TD)
Figure 27 Historic Views (TD) Next- Fig. 28: Lulot Gardens towards DPH (TD)
Figure 29 Entrance to Stoneleigh Terrace (TD)
Figure 30 Protected view between Cemetery and Stoneleigh Terrace (TD)
Figure 31 Stoneleigh Terrace towards Cemetery (TD)
Figure 32 Residents at evening at Sandstone Place (TD)
Figure 33 A damaged cabinet (TD)
Figure 34 Fenced off play-area at the Greens (TD)
Figure 35 Pedestrian Entrance from the East (TC/MS)
Figure 36 Steps from Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street (TD)
Figure 37 View east along Lulot Gardens (TC)
Figure 38 The Greens (TD)
Adjacent- Fig. 2: Cooks Camden HNT Playsquare at centre of Cluster (Martin Charles RIBA)
Figure 39 Former Bridal Way (now route) adjacent Highgate Cemetery (TD)
Figure 40 Cycling along Stoneleigh Terrace (TD)
Abbreviations: Tim Crocker(TC)/Mark Swenarton(MS)/ Peter Tàbori(PT)/London Borough of
Camden(LBC), Tom Davies (TD)

Fig. 3: London Borough of Camden
Fig. 4: Hampstead Ward and Location of HNT
8

Summary
This report presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and an application for Grade
II* Listing for Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT), Camden, London, designed by architect
Peter Tábori and constructed 1967-78. The study it presents was produced by a working-group
comprising residents from HNT, supported by their Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) the
Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) and community/heritage researcher Tom Davies
(AHO) together with architectural historian Professor Mark Swenarton as consultant. The report
sets out conservation guidance, developed through a community-led process and specific to HNT,
for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA). This is followed by the application
for Grade II* Listing for the deliberation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
and Historic England (HE), which seeks to recognise the national significance of HNT as exemplary
public-housing. These are made on the basis of its exceptional heritage values, the importance of
retaining community spaces for its community and strong resident support from that community.
The conservation guidance seeks to address the current lack of guidance specific to HNT in the
DPCA appraisal, whilst the application for Grade II* Listing is made on grounds of threat from the
cumulative impact of inappropriate maintenance and other interventions at HNT. As such, it seeks
to provide adequate protection from such impacts in the future. This accords with and meets the
requirements of the DCMS’ Principles of Selection for Listed Buildings, the Historic England Listing
Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war buildings and current Strategic Listing Priorities
as a Post-war Landscape for the external aspects and community spaces at HNT (DCMS 2018).
This study takes its lead from the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (DPNF), which identifies a
need for better community engagement and representation and who have expressed their support
for this initiative. It is intended to present the heritage of HNT from the perspective of its community,
then and now, exploring HNT’s design, build and use (adoption/adaptation) by the community to
develop a diverse narrative providing a comprehensive understanding of HNT as ‘place’ (in the
sense of its significance) and community (Norberg-Schulz in Knox 2005: 1).
The application for Grade II* Listing presents new information about design, development and life
at HNT from the extensive insights of new research by Mark Swenarton in Cook’s Camden: The
Making of Modern Housing, additional research by Tom Davies and a programme of workshops
with residents (Swenarton 2017: 108-135). It provides a fuller and richer picture of HNT than that
available for consideration under a previous application in 2006. This comprises Tábori’s distinct
approach at HNT, drawing on the heritage of Italian Hill-towns and teaching and experience
gained from working with architects Ernö Goldfinger, Richard and Su Rogers (who has expressed
support for the listing) and Team 4, Denys Lasdun, Serge Chermayeff, Paul Rudolph and Tábori’s
colleagues at Camden Architects (Camden Borough Architects). It reveals connections between
the UK, Europe and the US and a unique approach to urban renewal with an exotic Italian
flavour at HNT; through which Tábori drew upon his diverse experience to achieve something
his peers had been unable to do. Tábori’s adeptness in assimilating and developing ideas, from
community-focused design to standards of production and technical innovation, represents a unique
achievement in HNT as housing for community, in which it stands its ground with contemporaries
such as Alexandra Road and Lillington Gardens; both Grade II* Listed. Grade II* Listing at HNT
would recognise its high significance and with adoption of specific conservation guidance will
provide the support and protection it warrants in addition to that extended under the DPCA (Camden
2009).
The resident workshops revealed a strong correlation between how residents have adopted and use
HNT in everyday-life and Tábori’s intentions for the design. They also provided the opportunity to
discuss findings and to exchange stories and views through which the conservation guidance was
developed. Frustrations over current management, support and inappropriate repairs were revealed
to stem from a lack of understanding and representation of how HNT works in current conservation
guidance (the DPCA). This was addressed by developing the specific conservation guidance set
out in this report for inclusion in the DPCA. In these workshops an initial focus on maintenance
and use of external areas developed into considering how that enables residents to share space,
communicate and socialise. Through this the unique community spaces at HNT emerged as key
in providing the quality of everyday life and as an important community resource requiring better
support and maintenance. The vital community resource they provide, represents just one of the
important factors in the application for Grade II* Listing. The workshops also covered the technical
aspects of HNT’s design and how they can and can’t be modified addressing inappropriate
alterations and identifying areas of potential to help residents get more out of HNT. On this basis
of this, the conservation guidance and the application for Grade II* Listing are made equally on the
basis of HNT as place and community.
9

10

11

1 Introduction
1.1 Project background
1.1.1 This report presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and application for Grade II*
Listing of Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT), Camden, London, designed by architect Peter Tábori
(1967-78). The study it presents was produced by a working-group comprising residents from HNT,
managed through the Whittington Estate Residents Association (WERA) and community/heritage
researcher Tom Davies (AHO) together with architectural historian Mark Swenarton as consultant. It
sets out conservation guidance, developed through a community-led process and therefore specific
to HNT, for inclusion in the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA), and the case for Grade II*
Listing on grounds of threat and its high significance as per the procedure and qualifications detailed
in the above Summary. These are made on the basis of the exceptional heritage values at HNT, the
importance of retaining community spaces for its community and strong resident support from HNT’s
community. The project is the work of and owned by HNT’s community and contributes to academic
studies of heritage and community in Post-war housing. (occas.aho.no/people/tom-davies).
1.1.2 Designed by Peter Tábori and executed by job architect Kenneth Adie, HNT saw the redevelopment
of an area regarded by some at the time as one of Camden’s worst Victorian slums; although this
is strongly contested (Webb 1972: 148 & Pers. Comm. Treherne: 2019). Following a joint-venture
planned with the neighbouring London Borough of Islington, Tábori took HNT forward as a twopart
scheme for Camden, whilst the Islington portion became the Girdlestone Estate completed in
1975/76 (Willats 1986). Tábori’s initial scheme was revised following a council decision in ’67 to
take forward Phase 1 (housing) and complete Phase 2 (south of Raydon Street) at a later date. This
resulted in Tábori completing Phase 1, whilst phases 2A/2B and 2C were developed by Camden
colleagues Bill Forrest and Oscar Palacio in 76-78 & 78-81. 2A/2C was recently redeveloped
by Rick Mather Architect’s as Chester Balmore (2012-14), whilst 2C, comprising yellow-brick
blocks and houses, lies to the south facing onto Dartmouth Park Hill and Raydon Street. Whilst
acknowledging the contribution of Forrest and Palacio, this study considers Tábori’s work at Phase
1 on the basis of its achievement as community-focused design and its value for its community. This
should not exclude the surviving work by Forrest and Palacio at Phase 2C from consideration in the
future, but it does not form part of this study.
1.1.3 This study takes it lead from the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (DPNF) Dartmouth Park
Neighbourhood Plan (DPNF 2016), which identified a need for better community engagement and
representation at HNT. It presents the heritage of HNT from the perspective of its community, then
and now, exploring design, build and use (adoption/adaptation) by the community to provide a
comprehensive understanding of HNT as place and community. This forms the basis for specific
conservation guidance for inclusion in the DPCA and Grade II* Listing, in recognition of HNT’s
national significance. The core studies and workshops were undertaken 2018-2020 with wider
consultation of residents through survey to include those unable to take part in the open workshops.
Proceedings have been relayed to the community with their responses being used to inform the
study.
1.1.4 HNT is one of three studies which contribute data concerning communities on Post-war housing
schemes in London and Oslo as part of Tom Davies’ PhD. Thesis ‘The Architecture of the Ordinary:
Redefining the role of stakeholders in the future of Brutalist heritage’. This explores the balance
between heritage protection and vitality of use through ‘community commissioning’ to define
new approaches to heritage protection. This term, borrowed from UCL’s Engineering Exchange,
is summed up by Jeremy Till as the ‘Expert-Citizen/Citizen-Expert’ dynamic. In this, the expert
(heritage etc.) is most effective when they engage as both expert and citizen ‘working on behalf
of and as a dweller’ whilst residents as Citizen-Experts contribute critical ‘local-knowledge’ of
community and place. This helps build real consensus and create a successful outcome (here HNT)
(Till 2005: 33).
1.1.5 It produces a diverse (or strong) narrative about place and community presenting ‘the origin and
goal of the current activity that refers to different aspects of the core values and thus provides
“entries” for holders of different values. Once ‘entry’ is gained into the unfolding story of the
activity in focus the member can participate in the further elaboration of the adventure” in this
case the conservation guidance and Grade II* Listing (Jönsson 2002: 138-39). This narrative and
the neighbourhood resilience it incorporates represent capital for future projects (Stevenson and
Petrescu 2016).
1.2 Location & Topology
1.2.1 HNT is located in the northeast of the London Borough of Camden, lying centrally at TQ 28888680
and measuring 2.06 hectares. It is bordered to the east by Dartmouth Park Hill, to the west by
Highgate Cemetery. the Highgate Wing of Whittington Hospital lies to the north whilst Raydon Street
forms the southern boundary. The topology climbs steeply from Raydon Street to the north. 12

HNT in Redline
(Phase 2 to south of
Raydon Street)
Previous- Fig. 5: HNT Playsquare (Tim Crocker/Mark Swenarton TC/MS)
Fig. 6: Roof plan of original design for entire site showing four clusters (PT/LBC)
13

14

15

1.2.2 HNT represents Phase 1 of the original scheme for Highgate New Town developed in from late
‘60s, which is described as a “Funnel shaped site of 15. Acres (6.1. Hectares) on Camden/Islington
boundary. Flanked to north by Whittington Hospital, Highgate Cemetery to west and terraced streets
at Chester Road, Bertram Street, Winscombe Street and Bramshill Gardens (Swenarton 2017:
110-111). An account of this larger scheme, which was eventually developed in two parts, follows in
Section 4.
1.3 Summary Statement of Significance
1.3.1 HNT (1967/72-78) makes an outstanding contribution, to the Low Rise High Density (LRHD)
housing built under Camden’s head architect Sydney Cook, between 1965-73, as well as to London,
the UK and beyond. Its design embodies an urban renewal approach achieved through continuity,
connectivity and permeability with the surrounding streets, which capitalises on its former layout as
part of Victorian Highgate. The then revolutionary concept of ‘urban renewal’ was expounded in a
special issue of the Architectural Review in 1967 compiled by Nicholas Taylor (later re-printed as his
book The Village in the City, 1973), which counterposed the modernist concept of ‘the estate’ with
the way in which cities had normally developed – and which, he said, needed to be re-adopted. This
is captured in the following quote from Taylor;
“The British used to know how to build houses as an integral part of their towns; now they build
separate estates, with disastrous results socially and visually” (Swenarton 2017: 112)
1.3.2 Tábori took this thinking on-board, drawing on the character of the Victorian streets and overlaying
it with exotic elements drawn variously on Italian hill-towns together with influences from his
Hungarian background, studies and earlier work. In addition to drawing together Victorian Camden
and the hill-town, the buildings and streets are executed with attention to detail and the exacting
standards of job architect Kenneth Adie resulting in a high-standard throughout. The scheme is
characterised by clearly articulated relationships between public and private-space, as espoused by
key contemporary figures such as Jane Jacobs, Serge Chermayeff and Jaap Bakema, which makes
intensive use of a rich variety of devices from Italian hill-towns. The influences from Hungary and
Tábori’s former mentor, fellow Hungarian Ernö Goldfinger are embodied in the bold interiors of the
dwellings and the detailing of external features, such as grills and railings, whilst the later influence
of Richard and Su Rogers is present in several aspects (see under). Combined with the Brutalist ‘as
found’ approach, this continuity is achieved through integrating the scheme with the street layout
and character of earlier Highgate. Together with discrete squares, greens and recreation-spaces,
with a richly varied circulation of routes and views, Tábori’s design successfully lays out in built-form
the pre-conditions for community life (Pers. Comm: Swenarton: 2019).
1.3.3 The design of HNT draws heavily on the influence of contemporary sources which according to
Tábori “every student read” at that time (Swenarton 2017: 113). Key in this is the work of American
journalist and community activist, Jane Jacobs’, particularly her notion of eyes-on-the-street, as
set out in her The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs 1961). This formed standard
reading at the time, was a major influence for Tábori, and is today widely considered to be a seminal
work on urban planning. Jacobs’ views concerning how traditional streets largely police themselves
and how good built environment is to a degree self-regulating are manifest throughout HNT in the
interrelation of dwellings, blocks and streets and the overlooking of external areas from kitchens
and terraces. As such HNT was one of the first projects in the UK to apply this transatlantic thinking.
Swenarton tells us that;
“For Tábori, as for Jane Jacobs, this strong visual link between public and private was a key feature
of the traditional street, providing self-policing and thereby contributing to a successful community”
(Swenarton 2017: 127).
1.3.4 The focus on both distinct elements and their assemblage here, stems from the influence of
the Post-war architecture and planning pioneers Team 10 and the ‘Notions of inclusiveness,
contestation and personal engagement’ as described by one of its key members Jaap Bakema
(Van den Heuvel 2018: 240). The term ‘habitat’, used to describe a more holistic approach to living,
became common currency in the ‘60s and can be traced back to Team 10’s Statement on Habitat
(The Doorn Manifesto) presented at their inaugural conference at Doorn in the Netherlands in 1954.
Providing an idea of its intent the manifesto opens with “It is useless to consider the house except
as a part of a community owing to the inter-action of these on each other” (evolutionaryurbanism.
com). Jaap Bakema, Team 10’s secretary after Doorn, established a Post-box service in the early
‘60s which sought to “develop architecture and town planning towards a language which can
communicate about human behaviour” (Van den Heuvel 2018: 66). This reached architects from
Previous- Fig. 7: Sandstone Place (TC/MS)
16

the UK, Europe and Scandinavia and further afield to individuals such as Kenzo Tange in Japan,
working towards the needs of the anonymous client (the resident community) and the idea of an
‘open society’ in which;
“Each man’s attitude towards life will strongly be defined on by the balance of these new rights
and responsibilities and vice-versa. The expression (gestaltung) of this attitude could nowhere
be manifested so clearly as in our cities.” [With this] “Our urban districts could surprise and
stimulate again if only the hidden potential of our new social structure (the open society) were to be
expressed by building for the anonymous client.” (BPH Newsletter 27 th January 1961 in Ibid. 71).
1.3.5 HNT along with the other Camden projects built under Sydney Cook (1965-73) can be seen as
belonging to this school of thought, with its focus on provision for the anonymous client and in the
words of contemporary Dutch architect John Habraken in Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing
(1972) trying “to make provision for what cannot be foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game
designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016: 173).
1.3.6 The hill-town influence, through Tábori’s relationship with architect Richard Rogers, is in the use
of external stairs and circulation, rich arrangements of public-routes, entrances with gantries and
parapets, spaces and greens achieving the hill-town’s sense of intimacy helped by paired entrances
and shared amenities and the visual connections between street, home and surrounding area. This
extends to the axial layout of HNT, which can be traced all the way back to pre-Roman Etruscan
planning, which determined the layout of many of the hill-towns studied by Tábori. Notable details
here are the axial relationship and use of squares for community-focus and the diagonal cut-through
which relates back to the Etruscan’s belief that their God Tin’s gaze cleaved the town in two halves
(Barbacci 1989: 6-13).
1.3.7 Through this personal connection with Richard (Tábori’s tutor in the early ‘60s) and Su Rogers
HNT’s design draws on unrealised housing schemes and individual houses developed by the
Rogers at Team 4, notably Coulsdon, Surrey and Pill Creek, Cornwall (Appleyard 1996 & Powell
1999). This connection extends to Serge Chermayeff who had a significant influence on the Rogers’
when they studied at Yale in 1961-62. The attention to detail and technical precision, seen in
environmental thermal and air regulation (see 4.6), finds parallels in Rogers’ and Team 4’s work and
through the Yale connection can be traced back to architects such as Paul Rudolph (head of Yale
architecture school in 1961-62), Raphael Soriano and Charles and Ray Eames. Other personal
connections include Ernö Goldfinger who mentored Tábori and Denys Lasdun whom Tábori worked
for subsequently (Swenarton 2017: 113). Technical and engineering expertise is drawn both from
Ernö Goldfinger and Tábori’s time at Denys Lasdun & Partners (DLP), where he worked on the
Ziggurat halls of residence at the University of East Anglia. This technical expertise is apparent in
concreting techniques and technical solutions.
1.3.8 This diverse range of influences and experience is drawn together at HNT into a cohesive and
original scheme, countering the earlier assumption that Tábori drew only from colleague Neave
Brown’s work at Alexandra Road (English Heritage 2006). Whilst Tábori worked closely with and
was influenced by Brown, Brown formed an important part of Tábori’s diverse influences and
experience, rather than being exclusive. One measure of Brown’s influence on Tábori’s decision
to move to Camden from DLP, was determined that by the fact that Brown was already there
(Swenarton 2017: 110).
1.3.9 Common to Brown, Tábori and others at Camden, is Chermayeff and Christopher Alexander’s 1963
publication Community and Privacy: towards an architecture of humanity, which sought to achieve
“both privacy and the true advantages of living in a community [through] an entirely new anatomy
of urbanism…. built of many hierarchies of clearly articulated domains” (Chermayeff & Alexander
1963: 37). This should establish “A new physical order needed to give expression and meaning to
the life of ‘urbanising’ man, to clarify, to define, to give integrity to human purposes and organisation,
and finally, to give these form” (Ibid. 34) The methodology centres around a system of locks in the
form of transitional spaces and rooms, moving from Urban public to Individual Private, which they
define as “The ‘room of one’s own’ the inner-most sanctum to which individuals may withdraw from
their family.” (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963: 121-122). They conclude that “Only when the habitat
of urbanising man is given such an order shall we perhaps restore to urban life a fruitful balance
between community and privacy” (Ibid. 37).
1.3.10 Returning to Camden, Neave Brown’s 1967 article the ‘Form of Housing’ provides his account
of “how concepts of street, neighbourliness and continuity re-appeared, in project form in the
Smithsons’ Golden Lane and in fact at Park Hill”. He describes how;
17

“The individual house is itself a puzzle, but housing is not just a collection of houses, high or low.
More fundamental are the concepts which hold housing together, relate each house to its neighbour
and to it open space, determine the desirable relationships between housing and the attendant
functions of shopping, schools, social and welfare buildings, the circulation systems for pedestrians
and cars which hold the area together and establish contact. These concepts are concerned with
more than utilitarian criteria. They concern interpretations of desirable relationships in order to make
perceptible and therefore meaningful the contact between one activity and another, and their mutual
dependence.” (Brown 1967).
1.3.11 In addition to Rogers, Jacobs, etc., this shows that Tábori had this influence at close hand. From
which it is possible to imagine what conversations took place at Camden Architects on a daily basis.
1.3.12 The skill in which Tábori drew on his different associations, is present throughout the design of
the residences internally and externally, their varied layouts and flexible interior solutions and the
utilisation of the steep south-facing slope to achieve high densities with good lighting and air. There
is also near total accessibility for different levels of ability across the public areas of HNT and many
ground floor residences, provided by a scheme of ramps throughout, which presents an early
example of ‘access for all’ or ‘universal design’. As such HNT’s innovative design and standard
of execution, within the canon of community-focused design from the late ‘60s and increasing
recognition of Camden’s LRHD housing, demonstrate high evidential, historical and aesthetic value
(5 Heritage Values).
1.3.13 HNT’s story following completion reveals how its community has adopted and adapted the provision
of space and today enjoy living in a rich environment of diverse housing and external spaces. The
public spaces and gardens are used for community events, such as parties and social gatherings
realising the intended use of external space at design. As a community, residents have a collective
understanding of how HNT works and provides for them as individuals and families, not least in its
car-free space for play and recreation. Characteristic in this is an informality, in which residents are
free to determine how to use the external areas, reminiscent of the discrete squares of the hill-town.
This demonstrates the legacy of Tábori’s design and how that has played out in delivery, which can
usefully inform both current and future management.
1.3.14 Given the community’s role as the ‘anonymous client’, their story is integral in understanding
HNT’s role within the story of late ‘60s housing. As such their lived experience as residents in a
scheme with community-focused design provides a legacy from which we can learn. Returning to
the quote from John Habraken, with the benefit of 40 years’ hindsight, it is possible to review what
was delivered by provision of design. At HNT this has proved to be remarkably successful and
marks the pinnacle of its architect’s achievements. Whilst forming a core part of the historical and
evidential values mentioned above in particular it demonstrates high Communal value which is key
in binding together the historical, evidential and aesthetic values of HNT (Historic England 2008).
This provides a basis for informing conservation and care through the needs of its community,
retaining them as the anonymous client of both its design and future care (This Summary of Special
Significance is set out in full in 4. Statement of Significance).
1.3.15 Some of the key characteristics can be summed up as follows;
Community-focused design through detailed attention to public-private relationships
Scale of ambition, perseverance and achievement in the face of changing requirements, support and
funding
Provision of a unique layout of diverse community spaces forming a central resource in the quality of
everyday life for residents
Achievement in determining and delivering a scheme which accords with and provides for the
developing needs of its residents as anonymous client in the long-term;
Innovative approach to housing which combines continuity and community focus with Italian and
other influences, realising something distinct from its contemporaries
High-standard of architectural design and execution drawing from various celebrated influences
Technical innovation in variation of dwellings, utilisation of slope and daylight and early provision of
accessibility
Adjacent- Fig. 8: Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD)
18

19

20

21

2 Methodology
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The study starts with the Statement of Significance, presenting the historic baseline/development,
heritage values and character of HNT as a basis for determining sensitivity, setting, views and
patterns of use. The residents working group used this together with their own experiences as the
basis for detailed conservation guidance which seeks to protect the built-environment at HNT and
their interests as residents. It is intended that adoption of this, will help Camden and other bodies
to ensure that future repairs and interventions are appropriate to the character of HNT. To achieve
this, the study presents HNT as both place and community with an eye to raising the profile of both
community and place which might serve as an example for other post-war communities.
2.2 Aims and Objectives
2.2.1 The aims of Statement of Significance are to,
Present the historical-baseline of HNT,
Assess the character, built form and significance of HNT,
Determine sensitivity as a heritage-asset and establish the basis for assessing impact,
2.2.2 The aim of the Conservation Guidance work is to;
Learn from residents to fully understand the heritage values at HNT and how these have developed
over time,
Develop guidance for inclusion under Sub Area 5 of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA)
Secure specific conservation policy for the better management of HNT as place and community
2.2.3 The aims of the application for Grade II* Listing are;
To demonstrate, recognise and safeguard HNT as a site of national significance,
Provide the additional protection to that included under the DPCA required in recognising the national
significance of HNT,
2.2.4 The Listing application is made on the basis of;
the high significance of HNT as revealed by recent research;
the threat of cumulative impact from inappropriate maintenance and interventions and;
Qualification under the DCMS’ Principles for Listing (DCMS 2018)
Qualification under Historic England Listing Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war
buildings
Qualification under Historic England’s Strategic Listing Priorities as a Post-war Landscape.
2.3 Process
2.3.1 The ‘community-commissioning’ approach at HNT, as captured in Jeremy Till’s ‘Expert-Citizen/
Citizen-Expert’ dynamic, represents a ‘meeting in the middle’ which moves beyond top-down/
bottom-up approaches and their inherent power relationships (Till 2005). Using workshops,
discussion and interviews it is also possible to avoid the assumptions and inflexibility of written
survey and questionnaires, and allow process to remain responsive. This allows diverse and
developing requirements to emerge, avoiding coercive engagement which overrides community
interests in securing agenda (Friedman & Miles 2002, Blundell Jones Et. Al. 2005, Zimmermann &
Maennling, Crane & Ruebottom 2011). Sten Jönsson of the Gothenburg Research Institute (GRI)
describes this process;
‘We resort to consensus to overcome the doubt, but also to end divisions and misunderstandings
between defenders of different positions. We believe strongly in the benefits of mutual criticism and
free examination of arguments to reduce prejudice and subjective judgment on our way to a sound
decision. But as we approach choice and action there is a convergence of individuals to associate
with others, to demonstrate commitment to a shared attitude towards the contemplated action
so that others can rely on us to do our part, include us in their plans, groups and project. Action
presupposes unity of intent and discipline in pursuit of a Common fate.’ (Jönsson 2002: 140).
Previous- Fig. 9: Lulot Gardens from the steps (TC/MS)
22

2.3.2 Jönsson’s analysis demonstrates both the difficulty in retreating from decisions taken in consensusbuilding
and with that the importance of carrying the whole community forward in process, for which
he recommends building ‘strong narrative’;
“This can probably be accomplished by continuous production of a narrative about the origin and
goal of the current activity that refers to different aspects of the core values and thus provides
“entries” for holders of different values. Once ‘entry’ is gained into the unfolding story of the activity
in focus the member can participate in the further elaboration of the adventure” (Jönsson 2002: 138-
39).
2.3.3 This notion of ‘strong’ (or diverse) narrative underpins the work at HNT by building the narrative
of HNT’s architectural history into an evolving narrative which covers design and construction to
community and place. In so doing it builds community ties and ‘neighbourhood resilience’ through
the diverse understanding of HNT (Stevenson & Petrescu 2016 & Davies 2020).
2.3.4 Architect Doina Petrescu explains how this contributes to supporting place and community in future;
“Participation is a formative process. Residents are initiated through dialogue and interventions into
becoming an active part of their immediate surroundings. They start to shape their own policies, to
articulate their own voices and preferences, to organise themselves independently. By facilitating
this process we might manage to pass on tools that will allow them to re-shape their world. We learn
to ‘make-do’ together with the available resources” (Petrescu 2005: 53).
2.3.5 The working group at HNT was set up through the WERA through consultation to work on behalf of
residents. Using the WERA’s role as TRA to communicate between the working group and residents
as a whole helped keep process responsive and communicated as widely as possible. This was
done using material prepared by Tom Davies, which the WERA relayed to residents who were able
to respond to the WERA or by email to Tom Davies. The first stages were to establish the working
group as working on behalf of the community at HNT and then to determine the scope of the project
(conservation guidance and exploring the option of Grade II* Listing). The working group developed
the project, the WERA communicated and relayed information and all residents were invited to
participate either through the workshops or by sending in information.
2.3.6 Public noticeboards at HNT were used throughout to relay information together with the workshops,
WERA meetings and ‘walkabouts’ talking to residents, which provided opportunity to talk to
members of the community who did not join the workshops. Process concluded with a three-week
residents’ review of results for feedback and questions during which summaries of the project were
displayed in the notice-boards and delivered in person to each household, with an email address for
responses, which have been included in this report.
2.3.7 The constituent parts of the study are;
Workshops and site-visits with working group comprising WERA and other residents,
Preparation of baseline from documentary and other sources,
Review of the relevant planning policy and guidance as a basis for
recommendations,
Preparation of Statement of Significance including Setting and views,
Preparation of conservation policies with working group,
Listing Review
Residents review.
23

2.4 Workshops and Consultation
2.4.1 The main programme of workshops was carried out between March and November 2019. This was
preceded by three initial meetings between residents and Tom Davies to determine the scope of the
project. The workshops were supplemented by prior preparation and research (including the earlier
consultations) as well as ongoing liaison with the working group throughout the project period, and
evening walkabouts to talk to residents.
2.4.2 The workshops were held on,
June 6 th 2019- evening session on community and use, conservation guidance and scope for
listing (3 hours) attended by 11 individuals, variously members of the WERA, short and long-term
residents and former tenants. This working group has been approved by the WERA to represent
both represent residents across the estate and will report back through the WERA to the community.
August 6 th 2019- Group interview with three long-term residents to fill out the community’s timeline
at Highgate New Town Phase 1.
November 25 th 2019- Draft Presentation and discussion workshop (Autumn 2019)
February 15 th – 30 th 2020 – Public review for HNT residents and neighbours
2.4.3 Architectural Historian Professor Mark Swenarton the author of Cook’s Camden: the making of
Modern Housing (Swenarton 2017) was engaged on the project in August 2019 and provided review
and support on the historical baseline sections from thereon.
2.5 Sources
2.5.1 A range of sources were used to assess HNT’s significance and potential in line with best practice
guidance as outlined by Historic England and relevant legislation and guidance as well as current
best practice examples of Conservation Management. The conservation guidance policies have
been developed using current guidance from Historic England and other sources (HE 2019).
2.6 Assessment Criteria
2.6.1 Assessment of significance seeks to identify how particular parts of a site and different periods in
its evolution contribute to, or detract from, identified heritage values associated with the site. This
considers the present character of the site based on the chronological sequence of events that
produced it, and allows management strategies to be developed that sustain and enhance the
significance of heritage assets.
2.6.2 Significance (for heritage policy) is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Annex 2 as:
‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That
interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a
heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.’
2.6.3 Current national guidance for the assessment of the significance of heritage assets is provided
by Historic England in the document Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (HE 2008) in which significance is weighed by
consideration of the potential for the asset to demonstrate the following value criteria:
Evidential value. Deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
Historical value. Deriving from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be
connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative.
Aesthetic value. Deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place.
Communal value. Deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom
it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with
historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific
aspects.
24

Table 1: Heritage Asset Significance
Significance
International
Factors Determining Significance
World Heritage Sites
Assets of recognised international importance
National
Assets that contribute to international research objectives
Scheduled Monuments
Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings
Grade I and Grade II* Registered Parks and Gardens
Undesignated assets of the quality and importance to be designated
Regional
Assets that contribute to national research agendas
Grade II Listed Buildings
Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens
Conservation Areas
Local
Assets that contribute to regional research objectives
Locally listed buildings
Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor contextual associations
Assets with importance to local interest groups
Negligible
Unknown
Assets that contribute to local research objectives
Assets with little or no archaeological/historical interest
The importance of the asset has not been ascertained from available evidence
2.7 Assumptions and Limitations
2.7.1 The provisions of this study are provisional and draft (until adopted), whilst the data used,
comprising secondary information derived from a variety of sources, is as far as it is reasonably
verifiable accurate.
3 Regulation and Policy
3.1 Regulation
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
3.1.1 The primary legislation relating to Listed Buildings is the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which makes provision for the listing of buildings of special
architectural or historic interest, designation of conservation areas, and the exercise of planning
functions in relation to these. It requires Councils to have special regard to the desirability of
preserving a Listed Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest
which it possesses (sections 16 & 66) and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or
enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas (section 72) (HMS0 1990).
3.2 Policy
National Policy
3.2.1 Present government planning policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework
(DCLG 2012). Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
provides guidance for the conservation and investigation of heritage assets and requires local
authorities to take the following into account:
25

the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to
viable uses consistent with their conservation;
the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic
environment can bring;
the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to
the character of a place.
3.2.2 The aim of NPPF Section 12 is to ensure that Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning
Authorities, developers and owners of heritage assets adopt a consistent and holistic approach to
their conservation and to reduce complexity in planning policy relating to proposals that affect them.
3.2.3 To summarise, government guidance provides a framework which;
requires applicants to provide proportionate information on the significance on heritage assets
affected by the proposals and an impact assessment of the proposed development on that
significance. This should be in the form of a desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field
evaluation;
takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets
and their setting;
places weight on the conservation of designated heritage assets (which include World Heritage
Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and
Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas);
The Localism Act 2011
3.2.4 The Localism Act, 2011 sets out the grounds for devolution of power and resources ‘passing new
powers and freedoms to town halls’. It “gives councils more freedom to work together with others in
new ways to drive down costs. It gives them increased confidence to do creative, innovative things
to meet local people’s needs” (DCLG 2011a&b).
3.2.5 In delivering this ambition the Localism Act established the grounds for neighbourhood-planning
allowing communities to produce neighbourhood plans, to which the recent Dartmouth Park
Neighbourhood Plan belongs.
“Neighbourhood planning will allow communities, both residents, employees and business, to come
together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new
houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like” (DCLG 2011b).
Camden Local Plan (Adopted 2017)
3.2.6 The Camden Local Plan forms the core part of the London Borough of Camden’s Local
Development Framework. The following excerpts are from policies regarding the historic
environment, health and well-being, communities, accessibility, bio-diversity and sustainability which
are considered relevant in informing detailed conservation guidance. The policies are set out in full
in Appendix 1.
Heritage
3.2.7 From Policy D2 Heritage “Designed heritage (NB: including Listed Buildings) assets include
conservation areas and listed buildings;
“The Council will not permit the loss of or substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, including
conservation areas and Listed Buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that substantial harm or
loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the
following apply:
a. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;
b. no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate
marketing that will enable its conservation;
c. conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not
possible; and
d. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.”
3.2.8 On Conservation Areas from Policy D2 Heritage;
“Conservation areas are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction
with the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. In order to maintain the character
of Camden’s conservation areas, the Council will take account of conservation area statements,
26

Fig. 10: DPCA Sub-Areas / Fig. 11: DPCA Townscape Appraisal
27

appraisals and management strategies when assessing applications within conservation areas.”
Other relevant policy
3.2.9 From Camden Policy C1 Health and Wellbeing “The Council will improve and promote strong,
vibrant and healthy communities through ensuring a high quality environment with local services to
support health, social and cultural wellbeing and reduce inequalities.”
3.2.10 From Camden Policy C6 Access for All “The Council will seek to promote fair access and remove
the barriers that prevent everyone from accessing facilities and opportunities.”
3.2.11 From Camden Policy E1 Economic development “The Council will secure a successful and inclusive
economy in Camden by creating the conditions for economic growth and harnessing the benefits for
local residents and businesses.”
3.2.12 From Camden Policy A2 Open space “b. safeguard open-space on housing estates while allowing
flexibility for the re-configuration of land uses.” And, “f. conserve and enhance the heritage value of
designated open spaces and other elements of open space which make a significant contribution to
the character and appearance of conservation areas or to the setting of heritage assets.”
3.2.13 From Camden Policy A3 Biodiversity “f. seek to improve opportunities to experience nature,
in particular where such opportunities are lacking;” and “h. secure management plans, where
appropriate, to ensure that nature conservation objectives are met.”
3.2.14 From Camden Policy CC2 Adapting to climate change “The Council will require development to be
resilient to climate change. All development should adopt appropriate climate change adaptation
measures such as:
a. the protection of existing green spaces and promoting new appropriate green infrastructure;
b. not increasing, and wherever possible reducing, surface water runoff through increasing
permeable surfaces and use of Sustainable Drainage Systems;
c. incorporating bio-diverse roofs, combination green and blue roofs and green walls where
appropriate; and
d. measures to reduce the impact of urban and dwelling overheating, including application of the
cooling hierarchy.”
3.3 Guidance from Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA)
3.3.1 The Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) was designated on the 4th of February 1992 on
grounds of special interest that justifies designation through a character appraisal of the area.
It describes DPCA as a ‘variety and complexity that charts the history of domestic architecture
from the late 18th century to the present day’ (Camden 2009: 5). The current Conservation Area
Appraisal (DPCAA) dates to 22 nd of January 2019 (Ibid. 25-27).
3.3.2 The Dartmouth Park Conservation Area (DPCA) Appraisal, within which HNT is included as Sub
Area 5, commits the planning authority (Camden) to:
“from time to time, review the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area appraisal and update the management
plan from which development control decisions and where required design briefs can be
effectively achieved.
keep under review a list of buildings which, in addition to those already included on the statutory list,
positively contribute to the character or appearance of the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, to
aid decision-making and the preparation of proposals.
produce where relevant and possible supplementary planning documents including design guidance
and planning briefs – www.camden.gov.uk
expect the historic details, which are an essential part of the special architectural character of Dartmouth
Park Conservation Area to be preserved, repaired and reinstated where appropriate.
ensure that professional officers from the Conservation and Urban Design Team and Development
Control can advise on all aspects of development which could affect the conservation area.”
28

3.3.3 Current guidance for Sub Area 5 of the DPCA is limited and generic, but is supported by local policy
and guidance (see 3.2.7). The provisions specific to Sub Area 5 are;
Views
In the Whittington Estate views between the blocks towards Highgate Cemetery
View westward Chester Road up to Highgate Ridge.
Negative Features
Satellite dishes
Unsympathetic shopfronts and clutter on Chester Road
Unsympathetic windows to Mission Hall
3.3.4 The conservation area appraisal is described as being,
“for the use of local residents, community groups, businesses, property owners, architects and
developers and is an aid to the formulation and design of development proposals and change in this
area and its setting” (Ibid. 4).
3.3.5 Taken together with the requirement for supplementary planning guidance under Local Plan Policy
D2, this provides precedent for residents to actively contribute to guidance by informing about their
community and use of their area as a basis for determining policy.
3.4 DPNF Neighbourhood Plan
3.4.1 The Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum is currently finalising a report on engagement with
residents and the needs of the community, which included a day’s pop-up event at Highgate New
Town Phase 1 (The Whittington Estate). They managed to speak with around 20 respondents,
mostly families, given that the pop-up took place at school closing time. Residents talked about
a high sense of community acknowledging the role of car-free space in providing this, as well as
a need for social-housing provision and more shops. A high proportion of the respondents were
longer-term residents who emphasised the need for conditions that allow families to stay and grow
in the area. The report’s findings include a need to prioritise the TRA’s and RA’s of several estates
including Highgate New Town Phase 1 (the Whittington Estate) (DPNFNP 2016).
3.4.2 Further to this, Appendix 4 of the Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft April 2018: describes
Highgate New Town Phase 1 as,
“one of a series of ground-breaking housing estates designed by the Camden Architects’
Department under Sydney Cook in a signature house style, with linear stepped-back blocks”.
3.4.3 It concludes (without assessment of heritage significance) on grounds of “similarities to the
Alexandra Road estate in the west of the Borough, which is nationally listed at Grade II*. That
Highgate New Town should be included on the local list at a minimum.” (DPNFNP 2018: pp.123-
24)’.
3.5 Other Guidance
3.4.4 In addition to the current Historic England guidance Conservation Area Appraisal, Designation
and Management (Historic England Advice Note 1) (HE 2019), other best-practice guidance
considered includes the internationally recognised ‘Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of
Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance’ by James Semple Kerr, Heritage
Lottery Fund’s ‘Conservation Plan Guidance’ (Semple Kerr 2013 & HLF 2008).
3.4.5 Historic England Good Practice Advice (GPA) 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets, which sets out
guidance on managing change within the settings of heritage assets and is applicable to this study.
(HE 2017).
29

Planting at Lulot Gardens
30

31

4 Statement of Significance
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This Statement of Significance establishes the heritage values of HNT, presenting its historic
baseline and wider context. The development of HNT given is drawn from a range of sources,
notably Cook’s Camden: The Making of Modern Housing, information from residents, the DPCA
Appraisal and other sources (Camden 2009 & Swenarton 2017). It considers the influences and
experience of Peter Tábori, the design and development of HNT and its subsequent history detailed
by the working group and other sources.
4.2 Background to HNT
4.2.1 Low Rise High Density (LRHD) projects at Camden and elsewhere developed from a rejection of
the legacy of interwar Modernism seen in the ‘mixed development’ housing of 1940’s and ‘50s.
This mix of high-rise and low slab-blocks, preferred by the London County Council (LCC) and other
authorities came to be regarded as problematic due to issues such as their isolation of families
and individuals in tall structures and the lack of community produced by their disconnection from
street. This provoked a reappraisal of the street and other aspects of the traditional city such as
squares and terraces, which can ostensibly be traced back to the work of Team 10 and Brutalist
architects such as the Smithsons through their elevated ‘streets in the sky’. Notions of continuity and
community were central in this, discernible in the cooperation between architects and sociologists
undertaking surveys of working-class communities in areas of redevelopment. Examples include the
Smithsons and Nigel and Julia Henderson’s mapping of Bethnal Green, East London or the French
state employing thinkers such as Foucault and Lefebvre to advise on housing (Foucault 1967,
Swenarton, Avermaete & van den Heuvel 2015: 14 & Cupers 2016: 171).
4.2.2 The origins of LRHD as a type are diverse, responding to individual situations. These extend from
Le Corbusier’s Roq et Rob (1949) and Cap Baume (1948) which sit low in the landscape so as
not to detract from the wild beauty of Cote D’Azur, in the South of France or Patrick Hodgkinson’s
turning the tall-block on its side to articulate density through length; which proved inspirational for
Neave Brown and others at Camden (Steyn 2010: 22-26 & Swenarton 2017: 20-21). An impression
of the expansive take-up of LRHD can be gained from Hoffman and Repenthin’s Neue urbane
Wohnformen, with its myriad European and some American examples, published in 1956 and
reprinted in 1966 (Hoffman & Repenthin 1966). Against a backdrop of competing public and private
development interests, clear notions of habitat and community emerged in the late ‘50s within
which architects sought to reconcile private dwelling with public-space and increasingly to integrate
their schemes within the surrounding area and to redefine their housing as ‘a piece of the city’
(Freear 2013: 46). This is seen from Team 10 with Peter and Alison Smithson and Jaap Bakema’s
advancement of the Open-Society. This sought to balance collective provision and individual
expression to the complex dynamics of Foucault’s heterotopia’s as real city-spaces (Foucault
1969). Concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ zones, were advanced by Chermayeff and Alexander in
Community and Privacy: Towards a new Architecture of Humanism (printed 1963) which whilst
it received critique from Team 10, presented a problem-based methodological approach which
influenced Tábori, Brown and others (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963, Cupers 2016 & Boyer 2018:
16-26). Notably, Chermayeff and Alexander conclude that “Only when the habitat of urbanising man
is given such an order shall we perhaps restore to urban life a fruitful balance between community
and privacy” echoing Bakema and the Smithsons (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963: 37).
4.2.3 Given the influence of Community and Privacy on Camden Architects between 1965-73, it is
important to explain their system in greater detail and clarify the nature of its effect at Camden. The
locks or gradations of public to private set out in Community and Privacy are;
“Urban Public- The places and facilities in public-ownership: highways, roads, paths, civic parks.
Urban semi-public- The special areas of public use under government and institutional controls: city
halls, courts of justice, public schools, post offices, hospitals, transportation exchanges, parking
lots, garages, service stations, stadia, theatres.
Group public- The meeting ground between public services and utilities and private property
requiring joint access and responsibility: places requiring mail delivery, garbage (refuse)
collection, utilities control, access to fire-fighting equipment and other emergency service rescue
devices.
Group private- Various secondary areas under control of management acting on behalf of private
or public interest for the benefit of tenants and other legal occupants: receptions, circulation and
other spaces, community gardens, playgrounds, laundries, storage, etc.
Previous- Fig. 12: Lulot Gardens toward Highgate Cemetery (TD)
32

Family private- The spaces within the private domain controlled by a single family that are devoted
to communal family activities such as eating, entertainment, hygiene and maintenance.
Individual private- The ‘room of one’s own’ the inner-most sanctum to which individuals may
withdraw from their family” (Ibid. 121-122).
4.2.4 Having established this hierarchy of spaces, Community and Privacy then considers only the group
private by reviewing a series of stereotypes comprising well-known built-projects. Two important
principles are established by this which were carried forward in most of the Camden schemes
(including HNT). These are separate provision and buffering of zones for children and adults and the
use of upper terraces for adults which overlook lower terraces or gardens for children. This provides
both separate outdoor recreation space and ease of supervision for adults. Community and Privacy
wasn’t interpreted literally at Camden, but prompted the devising of different interpretations of public
to private, which for Neave Brown at Alexandra Road was to be fourfold (Public, semi-public, semiprivate
and private) and for Tábori at HNT was as far as reasonably possible public and private.
One factor which may have discouraged more literal implementation was Alison Smithson’s abrupt
critique of Alexander proposed the use of prototypes at the Team 10 meet at Doorn, Netherlands in
1954. Smithson’s harsh critique reflects Team 10’s aspiration to toward something more organic and
responsive (Boyer 2018: 31).
4.2.5 Whilst habitat/community-focused design and LRHD are two different things (the former an ideology
and the latter the physical means of delivery) they became largely synonymous in the late ‘60s by
virtue of occurring at the same time. While community-focused design can be achieved in high-rise
format (as at Goldfinger’s Balfron and Trellick Towers), the rise of LRHD in the ‘60s, driven by a
return to ground and street, following the rejection of mixed development, resulted in it becoming the
main means of delivering community (Roberts 2017).
4.3 Highgate New Town Phase 1 (HNT)
4.3.1 Setting the scene, the DPCA Appraisal describes Sub Area 5: (in which HNT is located) as “an
interesting mix of terraced housing from the 19th and 20th centuries. Highgate New Town was
the name given to the area in the 19th century, providing working-class housing largely multioccupied
from the start, and was reused when redeveloped in the 1970s by Camden Council.” This
combination “give[s] the sub-area its unique character despite the diverse age and styles of the
buildings. HNT is described in contrast with piecemeal development in the south of Sub-Area 5 as
one of the “larger areas… planned and built at the same time which give a greater sense of unity
within each distinct development. This is reflected also in the public realm (in and around HNT)
where the materials and spaces relate well to the built form” (Camden 2009: 25). HNT is described
in the Appraisal as Highgate Newtown Stage 1 (aka. The Whittington Estate) as,
4.3.2 “The estate is arranged in six terraces that climb the Highgate ridge, with vast underground carparking,
now converted to storage space for security reasons. A dominating mass, it has strong
horizontal lines with balconies and cornices at each level and strong vertical cross walls, in pale
concrete (now painted), with similarities to the Alexandra Road estate (listed Grade II*) in the
west of the Borough. Between each block are pedestrian streets, each with its own character, with
extensive planting which plays an important role in breaking up and softening the sometimes brutal
use of concrete. In the middle is a grassed open space. On the western side is Highgate Cemetery
that provides a wild and leafy end to the terraces and pedestrian streets. The external walls (of
Phase 1 not the cemetery) were sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted,
with timber windows. Most of them have been painted white. The design allows for each flat or
house to have its own private south facing terrace or courtyard.” (ibid. 25).
4.3.3 When planned, HNT formed part of one of three areas of the borough rightly or wrongly condemned
as slums and earmarked for redevelopment in January 1966 by Camden’s Head of Planning Bruno
Schlaffenberg. The initial scheme covered a funnel-shaped site of 15 acres at the Camden/Islington
boundary, extending from Whittington Hospital, in the north to the streets connecting to Chester
Road in the south, which would be developed over two phases (Swenarton 2017: 110-111). This
included the replacement of around thirty shops at Dartmouth Park Hill which in line with council
policy should be away from main-roads. This in part explains their eventual inclusion in Phase 2A&B
(now demolished) at the junction of Chester Road and Raydon Street. Other provision included
a library, play-groups, workshops, tenants-meeting rooms, a multi-use community centre, a daycentre
for mental-health patients, clubroom for disabled, old people’s home for 40-50 residents (the
Chester Road hostel) swimming baths and maternity/child welfare clinic and medical group practice
(Webb 1972: 155 & Swenarton 2017: 111).
33

Polygon Road
34

4.3.4 The scheme began in joint venture with neighbouring Islington Council; the Islington side eventually
becoming the Girdlestone Estate completed in 1975/76 (Willats 1986). The architects at this early
stage were Richard Gibson for Camden and Norman Cedar for Islington. Tábori replaced Gibson in
late ’68, when he left Camden. Something of Gibson’s legacy remains in the layout of streets set at
right angles to Dartmouth Park Hill, which Tábori developed (see 4.8).
4.3.5 The Retcar Street section (north) of HNT was given first priority because conditions were perceived
to be worst there, no doubt aided by the fact that the council had already begun to acquisition
houses. An alternate view of this is that the threat of CPO hanging over Highgate New Town
prompted neglect and a lack of investment (Webb 1972: 148) The 1966 scheme was primarily
residential and would see an increase from 1800 residents to 2060, which would be sufficiently
above the housing yardstick density of 136 persons per acre (ppa.); the lower limit for subsidies
to councils (required to make the scheme viable) as set by the Ministry of Housing and Local
Government (MHLG).
4.3.6 The acquisition by Compulsory purchase order (CPO), requiring approval by the MHLG, dragged
out between ‘68-69 and resulted in a public enquiry delaying the start of construction. During this
time Sydney Cook, recently appointed head of architecture at the new London Borough of Camden
(by merging St Pancras, Hampstead and Holborn under the Civic Act of 1965) engaged Tábori on
another scheme at Polygon Road in the south of the borough where he designed “a four-storey
terrace embracing two two-storey ones, arranged on five levels. These are divided at ninety
degrees, creating an L-shape, so that every flat gets some southern light.” Polygon Road provided
Tábori the opportunity to test out ideas for HNT (Watkinson 2019: 2). It achieved a density of 220
ppa. and has been described as “A scheme of panache with stairs linking up between units” (Webb
1972: 148). By the time matters were resolved, a decision had been taken to progress Phase
1 of Highgate to the north of Raydon Street (HNT), whilst Phase 2 would follow at a later date.
Redevelopment east of Chester Road was dropped in preference for retaining the existing terraces.
4.4 Peter Tábori
4.4.1 Before describing the scheme that Peter Tábori produced and Kenneth Adie delivered for HNT an
account of Tábori as an architect is required so as to contextualise the influences borne out in HNT.
It is also important to note that whilst Adie ensured exacting standards in construction, the scheme
as completed is largely as designed by Tábori. Whilst some changes were suggested by Sydney
Cook’s successor Alfred Rigby, only the glass canopies above stairwells at Lulot Gardens are
recorded as having been implemented (Swenarton 2017 & Pers Comm. Watkinson: 2018).
4.4.2 Peter Tábori moved to London in 1956, following the Russian invasion of Tábori’s home country
of Hungary during which he was incarcerated for 6 months. Arriving in London, Tábori studied at
Regent Street Polytechnic (today Westminster University), where his tutors and critics included
fellow architects James Stirling, Neave Brown, Eldred Evans and Richard Rogers. He earnt
a travel scholarship in the first year which he used to travel in northern Italy, visiting Siena,
Florence and Pisa. At the end of his second year Tábori took a break at architect James Stirling’s
recommendation, during which he worked for fellow Hungarian Ernö Goldfinger. Goldfinger
undertook to mentor Tábori which he described as “every night [it] was like a tutorial” (Swenarton
2017: 109). This mentoring is reflected in a shared interest in Pre-Modernist buildings and form
and the rich wood interiors of HNT and Goldfinger’s Willow Road (built 1939) (McKay 2006: 155).
The former of these Swenarton describes as having a “sense of the mysterious and formal” which
is completely unlike the clarity of Neave Brown’s interiors and links them to Tábori’s Hungarian
background which suggests a further link with Goldfinger (Swenarton 2017: 130)
4.4.3 On returning to Regent Street in 1963-64, Tábori was inspired by tutor Richard Rogers’ enthusiasm
for mass production (from Eames, Soriano and others see 4.4.7) and began his thesis exploring
industrialized housing typologies under Rogers’ supervision who recommended he use real sites
and briefs. The Italian-born Rogers also encouraged Tábori to draw on experience from travels
visiting Italy’s hill-towns, providing a likely link between the focus of the thesis on vertical facades
and hung balconies, and the terraces and externalised features (stairs, accesses etc.) of HNT and
Polygon Road. Swenarton cites San Gimignano, Umbria as an example, in addition to others he
visited. Whilst the hill-towns and terraced sites were being made popular at the time by coverage
in the Architectural Review (AR), this was more in the Picturesque tradition advanced by Gordon
Cullen characterised by his “interest in a psychological approach to form and the complex issues
surrounding urban renewal and the conservation of identity” and others rather than Tábori’s reading
of them as a source for urban renewal (Appleyard 1986: 127, Orillard 2012: 728 & Swenarton 2017:
20-21).
Adjacent- Fig. 13: Polygon Road (TD)
35

4.4.4 Richard Rogers had recently returned from studying at Yale before tutoring Tábori, where he was
taught by amongst others Serge Chermayeff, whose influence is clearly discernible in the early work
of Rogers, Su Brumwell (Rogers), Wendy Cheesman and Norman Foster’s firm Team 4. This output
comprises housing, both individual houses and schemes, which represented Rogers’ major interest
at the time. Built projects comprise private houses at Creek Vean, Feock, Cornwall (’64-’67), the
Jaffes’ House, Radlett, Herts (’64) and Murray Mews as well as two unrealised housing schemes at
Pill Creek Housing, Feock, Cornwall (1964) & Coulsdon, Surrey (1965).
4.4.5 At Coulsdon a steep 70-acre site demanded an unconventional approach, which drew on Atelier
5’s Siedlung Halen and Chermayeff & Alexander’s Community and Privacy, producing integrated
routes and terraces which separated pedestrians and cars and carefully grouped residences and
amenities. Commissioned by Wates housing, Coulsdon formed a response to the success of the
late ‘50s early ‘60s schemes by Eric Lyons and Span at Blackheath, South London. Team 4 followed
Lyons’ use of materials but with a more aggressive solution drawing heavily from Chermayeff’s
ideas concerning the separation of private, semi-private and public spaces’. Coulsdon “leaned
heavily on Chermayeff’s analysis of the need for a hierarchy of spaces divided by ‘locks’ which
reinforced those spaces and signalled movement from one to another” which Rogers’ recalls as one
of his best unbuilt schemes (Appleyard 1986: 124).
4.4.6 The smaller Pill Creek, took lessons in landscape and integration from neighbouring Creek Vean
resulting in a dense terraced village, in which individual houses were afforded complete privacy
whilst remaining part of a distinct community. Both schemes are intensely integrated within their
landscape and have extensive retention of planting, reflecting Rogers’ admiration for Frank Lloyd-
Wright who “advocated an ‘organic’ architecture as the expression of a democratic society” and
chiming with the habitat ideas of Team 10 and Jaap Bakema (Van den Heuvel 2018: 240). These
unbuilt schemes contrasted with the AR’s promotion of Italian hill-towns as picturesque by drawing
instead on the potential to deliver dense housing with a strong sense of community (Powell 1999:
36-37). Tábori was as inspired by Rogers as Rogers was by Chermayeff, describing him as ‘a
wonderful tutor’ (Swenarton 2017: 110). At the end of Tábori’s fourth year Rogers gave up teaching
full-time to focus on Coulsdon, but continued to mentor Tábori on an ad-hoc basis. In return for this
mentoring Tábori produced some of the drawings for Creek Vean (Swenarton 2017: 110).
4.4.7 Given this personal relationship, the Yale connection bears some further consideration. Whilst at
Yale, Rogers was similarly impressed, as by Chermayeff, by the work of architects such as Paul
Rudolph (head of the architecture school in 1961-62), Raphael Soriano and Charles and Ray
Eames, through their use of new materials and technology. These architects were heavily influenced
by Frank Lloyd Wright whose “peculiarly American romanticism had softened the edges of new
technology presenting it as a form of simplicity”, which was opened up for Rogers at Yale by the
teaching of Vincent Scully (Appleyard 1986: 127). In his biography of Rogers, Appleyard describes
how Rogers was influenced by projects such as the Florida houses by Yale Head Paul Rudolph
and Ralph S. Twitchell, the work of Raphael Soriano & Craig Ellwood and the Eames’ Case-study
houses (1945). Rogers later reflected on how Eames “utilised his awareness of industrial processes
to construct a house off-the-shelf using standard, widely available parts, which seemed ad hoc and
cheap, representing a casualness and open transformability which broke with the agonising of the
past”; which in its re-use and empowering the user has some affinity with Brutalism’s ‘as found’ ethic
(Appleyard 1986: 127). These projects employed lightweight steel construction and an interest in
‘technology transfer’ and prefabrication informing the technological expertise that Rogers developed
through Team 4’s trials and errors (with exasperating results and cost overruns). Rogers was also
influenced by the work of Louis Khan who often chose to externalise services in his buildings. This
can be seen in Rogers’ work and may accompany the hill-town influence at HNT in external stairs
and accesses, freeing up space for internal layout. (Ibid., Sudjic 1994: 39-40 & Powell 1999: 12-13).
4.4.8 Team 4 faced severe difficulties in their early projects which were mostly of brick and concrete. This
may explain why Rogers’ later work has a characteristic focus on technical solutions with the use of
glass and steel. Rogers describes this as;
“On the one hand the buildings were off-the-shelf, implying that they could be available to everyone
rather than simply those with special expertise or access to particular materials. On the other, they
were easily transformable, changeable for changing needs, and were, as a result, appealing to a
generation which valued above all the possibilities of a condition of constantly becoming (Powell
1999: 128).”
36

4.4.9 These diverse influences via the close relationship with Rogers are evident at HNT in the technical
detail and precision and the flexible and varied dwelling-types and community-focus, alongside
Jacobs and the other influences. In addition to the fact that Tábori had worked on Creek Vean,
Swenarton tells us that the initial scheme ‘a strip of parking, with two strips of housing on either
side, and two strips of parkland beyond that’ was essentially that used by Team 4 at Coulsdon
(Swenarton 2017: 115 & 126-130). Before leaving the Rogers/Yale connection it is worth mentioning
Rudolph’s proposal for the LOMEX (Lower Manhattan Expressway) (1967-72 unbuilt). Whilst
achieving a terrifying futuristic vision for New York on an epic scale, the terraced low-rise blocks of
the LOMEX scheme have something in common with HNT and other European terraces at the time,
perhaps reflecting influence going the other way (Lamster 2010).
4.4.10 Tábori was subsequently taken on by Denys Lasdun & Partners (DLP) (’65-68), primarily to
work on the University of East Anglia, where he was engaged on the terraced ziggurat-like halls
of residence, spending five-months on the details of the pre-cast concrete working closely with
the engineers, Arup (Swenarton 2017: 109-110). Tábori’s arrival at Camden in 1967 came about
through an informal interview with Sydney Cook, who was reportedly excited by the prospect
of meeting Tábori, given his background in connections with Team 4, Goldfinger and Lasdun.
Tábori arrived at Camden with the wealth of experience in production, materials, detail and ideas
concerning community derived from these earlier associations, which he translated into the urban
renewal approach taken to HNT and Polygon Road. He had also been impressed by Neave Brown,
during their earlier association, through Regent Street Polytechnic and the Architecture Association
(AA). To which end, he has explained his decision to leave somewhere as prestigious as DLP as
being largely determined by the fact that Brown was already at Camden (Swenarton 2017: 110).
4.4.11 Through Rogers and the clear affinities with Team 4’s schemes for Coulsdon and Pill Creek, a
shared admiration for Serge Chermayeff and indirectly the diverse influences of Lloyd-Wright
(nature and an organic approach to planning), Rudolph, Soriano, Eames (mass-production and
technological innovation) present both the progressive and the communal. Other characteristics
from Rogers and Team 4’s work include generous use of height in living rooms and halls and the
externalisation of circulation etc. to free up interiors. The progressive theme introduced by Rogers
goes together with Tábori’s experience at DLP and Lasdun’s renowned attention to detail, whilst
influence from Goldfinger is clearly present in the bold dynamics of the interiors and external
detailing of railings and other devices, which show affinities with Willow Road. Tábori’s admiration
for Neave Brown is evident in the treatment of public and private space and the terraces and
balconies, and dimensions and layout on which he bases the distinct character of HNT.
4.4.12 Returning to Rogers, given that neither of Team 4’s housing schemes were realised, despite Rogers
committed passion for housing, it seems that he took particular interest in Tábori’s achievement at
HNT. The fact that Su Rogers ‘reviewed’ the as-then unbuilt HNT design in 1973 for the Architectural
Review is indicative of the support that the Rogers family was giving Tábori at this time. Their
interest and support appears further evidenced by the decision by the AR to publish an unbuilt
project being unusual at that time, reflecting the Rogers’ influence. There are also reports from
Camden colleagues of Richard and Su Rogers’ visiting the Camden department to give a lecture
while Tábori was there and lobbying for delivery of Tabori’s polygon road project once the decision
had been taken to outsource it. What is certainly, apparent in HNT as physical evidence of this
development is Tábori’s success in drawing together the diverse array of influences he had on hand
and refining it with his own stamp (Rogers 1973 & Pers. Comm. Swenarton: 2019).
4.4.12 Finally, having demonstrated the diverse experience Tábori drew on at HNT, it is important to
mention Neave Brown’s 1967 article ‘The Form of Housing’ which provides a succinct account
of “how concepts of street, neighbourliness and continuity re-appeared, in project form in the
Smithsons’ Golden Lane and in fact at Park Hill”. Talking about housing Brown describes how;
“The individual house is itself a puzzle, but housing is not just a collection of houses, high or low.
More fundamental are the concepts which hold housing together, relate each house to its neighbour
and to it open space, determine the desirable relationships between housing and the attendant
functions of shopping, schools, social and welfare buildings, the circulation systems for pedestrians
and cars which hold the area together and establish contact. These concepts are concerned with
more than utilitarian criteria. They concern interpretations of desirable relationships in order to make
perceptible and therefore meaningful the contact between one activity and another, and their mutual
dependence.” (Brown 1967).
4.4.13 In addition to Rogers, Jacobs, etc., this shows that Tábori had this influence at close hand. From
which it is possible to imagine what conversations took place at Camden Architects on a daily basis.
37

38

39

4.5 Density & Execution
4.5.1 Tábori’s preparatory research for HNT revealed that many contemporary projects achieved lower
densities than the housing they replaced. He reasoned that this was because they were calculated
on bed-spaces not on the actual number of residents who lived there and hence argued for an
increase in the density of bed-spaces to rectify this. Whilst the density figures for the entire 10.9-
acre site (HNT and Phase 2 together) fluctuate through its development they were presented in
October 1970 at 500 dwellings (78 for elderly people) with 1804 bed-spaces achieving a density of
141 ppa. At HNT the ensemble of flats, maisonettes and three-storey houses at Stoneleigh Terrace,
total some 275 units, equating to 1070 bed-spaces over just 5 acres (2 hectares). This achieves a
density of 214 ppa. (529 persons per hectare by today’s terms) delivering two thirds of the original
projected figure. This is comparable to that achieved by Neave Brown at Alexandra Road and
considerably above the zoned density of 136 (Swenarton 2017: 116 & 126).
4.5.2 This is no small part achieved by the steep south-facing topography, presenting scope for
significantly higher densities and closer spacing of buildings, because its elevation naturally
resolves daylight issues. This is further aided by the adjoining open-space of Highgate Cemetery.
On the basis of this Tábori was able to project higher densities for HNT than the rest of the scheme
(Phase 2) whilst still including open and green-spaces (Ibid.). Writing about the scheme in AD
(1972) former Camden Architects colleague Sam Webb tells us “The spacing of the blocks was
determined by lighting considerations and their form by the fact that straight, parallel blocks give
higher densities than blocks that turn corners” (Webb 1972: 155).
4.5.3 Tábori’s initial scheme comprised “a strip of parking, with two strips of housing on either side, and
two strips of parkland beyond that” (PT 2010, quoted in Swenarton 2017: 114) which did not deliver
the required parking. Hence the concept was altered to three rows of housing, with two strips of
underground parking in between and parkland beyond. This defined 3 rows of housing and two rows
of parking as a ‘cluster’, with clusters separated by parkland. A range of connections between rows
were provided by breaks at the centre of the site which became children’s play-areas, a diagonal
alleyway (discussed in detail in 4.8) and the retention of a former bridle-way (for horses) as the
north-south route between Stoneleigh Terrace and Lulot Gardens bordering the cemetery. Of the
play-areas one remains today whilst the others have become recreation-spaces or informal squares,
the use of which is discussed in 4.9 (Swenarton 2017: 112).
4.5.4 Swenarton suggests that the clusters of HNT may have been influenced by Eldred Evans & David
Shalev’s 1965 scheme for the Natural Trust at Broadclyst, Devon, which presented 280 units ‘in a
series of clusters along a protected [pedestrian] route’. Describing HNT’s clusters, Tábori stated
that “Pedestrian decks will be hard-paved but well-planted with trees and shrubs forming a pleasant
contrast to the grassed and landscaped open spaces, separating the clusters from each other.
Children’s play-spaces will be provided at focal points within each cluster.” Swenarton interprets
this as Tábori overlaying his design onto Neave Brown’s street-based format to provide a scheme
in which a third of the total area is “play areas and landscaped greenspace open to the public”
(Swenarton 2017: 116).
4.5.5 Sam Webb describes in AD (1972) HNT as follows;
“The dwellings, flats, maisonettes and houses, are arranged in clusters of standard bay types
with terraces grouped in threes, which form between them, the pedestrian streets and connecting
playsquares. All semi-public areas, lifts, access corridors etc. are avoided and all private units are
entered directly from public routes. The rise of the building[s] was determined by the maximum
acceptable walk-up of 2 storeys, this means a rise of 3 storeys over the site.” (Webb 1972: 155)
4.5.6 The facades at HNT are of concrete, constructed variously from precast and in-situ elements
and blocks. The colour is a Bath-stone like yellowish tinge, complementing the yellow stock brick
of neighbouring buildings. The columns and beams of the substructure were cast in-situ, while
loadbearing cross-walls are of block-work and internal walls combine fair-faced blocks (Tábori
specified Forticrete but this was cut for cheaper variant) and the precast elements which make
up the fin walls and balcony planters. As Tábori put it, ‘The concrete specification [was] borrowed
from DLP [Denys Lasdun & Partners], to create the uniform sandstone colour executed with high
attention to detail’ (Swenarton 2017: 110). This is summarised in AD in 1972 as “in situ concrete;
superstructure, loadbearing cross-walls; external walls sand coloured concrete blocks” (Webb 1972:
155)
Previous- Fig. 14: View from Bridle Way into the Greens (TD)
40

4.5.7 Construction firm AE Symes were appointed in December 1971 and started work in June 1972
overseen by Tábori’s colleague Kenneth Adie. In 1976 AE Symes went bankrupt, resulting in a long
delay before their replacement by YJ Lovell in May ’77. Lovell had to begin by remedying substantial
damage to works completed which had occurred during the delay, together with some defects in
AE Syme’s work. It was also discovered that the reinforcement of the fin-walls was too close to the
surface requiring them to be coated to cover the reinforcement which significantly impacted the
uniformity of the finish (Swenarton 2017: 135).
4.6 From building to street
4.6.1 HNT is constructed on the same 18 foot (5.5m) plot structural grid (defined by the width of the
garages) employed at Alexandra Road, but rather than opting for Brown’s range of 6 residential
unit types, Tábori exploited the topology of HNT to produce a greater variety of different plans for
the dwellings. By carrying the structure on the cross-walls it was possible to make all internal walls
demountable, allowing adjacent bedrooms to be opened up as one and a day/night cycle achieved
through the sliding partitions in kitchen and dining areas and in the larger units between dining and
living areas (Swenarton 2017: 128).
4.6.2 Living spaces and bedrooms are located on the south side of the dwellings directly connecting
to balconies (for adults) and gardens at lower level (for children), an arrangement which reflects
both the influences of Chermayeff and Alexander and Neave Brown, notably at Winscombe Street
(Chermayeff & Alexander 1963). The bathrooms, storage and kitchens are located to the north
setting the former two into the natural slope and providing the kitchen with a clear view over the
pedestrian street. This is where the ‘eyes on the street’ self-policing described by Jacobs in Death
and Life of Great American Cities is most evident, allowing adults to keep a keen eye on children at
play. Jacob’s thinking is also present across HNT in the interrelation of routes and public and private
spaces (see 4.7). Swenarton describes Jacobs’ influence as;
“For Tábori, as for Jane Jacobs, this strong visual link between public and private was a key feature
of the traditional street, providing self-policing and thereby contributing to a successful community”
(Swenarton 2017: 127).
Fig. 15: Cooks Camden Sketch showing environmental strategy and
south facing conservatory with open glazing (PT/LBC)
41

42

43

44

45

4.6.3 This internal/external arrangement optimises the south-facing aspect to bring sun into living areas.
There is partial screening in the majority of flats from over-heating by the protruding overhang of the
balcony above. Elsewhere, rooms which don’t require daylight are set into the slope. In the narrower
housing-units the living-room spans the plot whilst in the four-bed units it extends over the entire
upper floor, demonstrating something of the variation of dwelling types Tábori achieved in exploiting
the topology of the site.
4.6.4 It is in the interplay between daylight and movable space (through partitions and full-height doors)
and the dynamic of light and dark it produces, that Swenarton’s description of the interiors as
‘mysterious and formal’ becomes apparent (Swenarton 2017: 130). Contrast is between the dark
wood of surrounds, doors, stringers and hand-rails against the lighter tones of the stair-treads,
risers and white or cream walls. This is heightened by the darker north aspects and the daylight
brought in through balconies and gardens, which shifts gradually across the facades as the day
progresses. The stairs, constructed in light and dark wood, are illuminated by natural light via a
tall narrow window connecting to the living-room, spreading down from a small landing apparently
intended for buggies or other equipment. The flexible plan provided by the full-height doors and
sliding partitions, allow adjoining rooms to be opened up as one space and is also seen in the other
practical considerations, such as the small landings and housing of heaters within benches between
living-room and balcony (Pers. Comm. Watkinson 2018).
4.6.5 These contrasting tones presented with pared-back simplicity have a distinctive character with
affinities with Goldfinger’s work at Willow Road (Mackay 2006). Additional references to Goldfinger
are seen in the external areas in the grilles at car-parking level and various locations across HNT.
These are particularly reminiscent of the entrance gates and the railings of the internal stairs at
Willow Road. Significantly, some of these grilles form part of the façade facing Highgate Cemetery
from Stoneleigh Terrace, which is the only view of HNT currently detailed under Sub-area 5 of the
DPCA “In the Whittington Estate views between the blocks towards Highgate Cemetery” (DPCA
2009: 27)
4.6.6 The full-width south-facing balconies throughout HNT reflect the ideas of Team 4 in their housing,
and respond to contemporary ecological thinking, notably Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962)
which the Rogers’ were exposed to at Yale. They also reflect influence from Camden Architects
colleague Patrick Hodgkinson’s winter-gardens at the Brunswick which allow use year-round. Tábori
designed a version of the winter-garden for HNT, with a twin openable glazing system intended
to act as heat-trap, which would form part of the environmental system of HNT. They would have
been retained by an insulated façade, inspired by Team 4’s work at Creek Vean and possibly using
the same neoprene rubber for jointing which has apparently never leaked, but were cut due to cost
constraints (Powell 1999: 22-23 & (Swenarton 2017: 126-27).
4.6.7 Similar attention to detail was taken in designing the district-heating and gravity-water systems, both
of which are through-scheme installations. The district-heating system runs from stacks and a boiler
at Stoneleigh Terrace, whilst the water system is gravity-based, balancing distribution across HNT.
This reputedly worked well initially, but has been modified over the years by the addition of powershowers
and other devices which has impacted distribution (Pers. Comm. WERA: 2019). Tábori
also calculated that the design and siting of buildings and spaces across HNT would draw in heat
through the open full-height glazing to the south, whilst the smaller and fewer apertures to the north
would help to retain heat. This being ‘open’ to the sun on the south side and ‘closed’ to the cold on
the north provides natural thermal regulation, detailed through technical drawings, which is balanced
by the shading provided by balcony overhangs etc. to prevent excessive light and heat build-up.
This reflects both influence via Yale and more generally the nascent environmental movement, as
per texts such as Silent Spring (1962) (Pers Comm. Swenarton: 2019). More significantly, it is not
paralleled in the other schemes at Camden designed by Neave Brown and others, which marks
HNT as one of the first housing designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the
need to protect the planet.
Previous- Fig. 16: Lower maisonette, looking from dining to living area and balcony (TC/MS)
Previous- Fig. 17: Lower maisonette, paired doors to bedrooms separated by on-axis demountable partition (TC/MS)
Previous- Fig. 18: 3 Storey house, kitchen from living room (TC/MS)
46

Fig. 19: Axonometric of cluster
showing pedestrian streets and
play square (PT/LBC)
Fig. 20: Civita di Bagnoregio (Stephanie Bower)
47

4.7 Urban Renewal and Community
4.7.1 Tábori was opposed to the idea of the estate as an enclosed enclave and supported an approach
through urban renewal (Swenarton 2017: 135). Through this he sought to utilise existing qualities,
retain existing housing of quality where able and introduce new housing using what was essentially
an infill principle. As part of this, non-housing functions would be located within the buildings at
street in an effort to draw in the public from surrounding areas. This connecting up HNT as a
piece of city was developed by through-routes and establishing a network of visual connections
with the surrounding streets and Highgate Cemetery. This sense of continuity is strengthened by
the extensive planting throughout HNT, matching the greenery of the cemetery. Another facet of
continuity was the use of the same street signs as neighbouring streets. These were later removed
and replaced with standard Camden council signs and estate maps which mark HNT out as
something separate to the neighbouring streets (Pers. Comm. Watkinson: 2018).
4.7.2 The community-spaces at HNT, particularly the informal squares and the greens, are a very
important resource for residents in their everyday discourse. Historian Robert Maxwell writing about
Alexandra Road describes the various community spaces built at Camden reflect the ‘optimistic’
mood of the time and a ‘confidence in large developments at high densities, and faith in complex
briefs’. In particular, he notes how this included the opportunity to improve whole areas through the
inclusion of a public park and the scope for needed social buildings (Maxwell 1979). What singles
the community spaces of HNT out from other schemes, such as Alexandra Road where there is
one large single park, is the diversity of use made possible through the many smaller community
spaces.
4.7.3 In establishing the routes of HNT Tábori worked with the diagonal line of the earlier Retcar Street,
and the right-angled street-plan developed under Gibson which connects to Dartmouth Park
Hill. The line of Retcar Street was developed into a cut-through which rises and falls via steps
and slopes, beginning with steps from Raydon Street up to Stoneleigh Terrace, beyond which it
intersects the terraces and greens of Sandstone and Retcar Place continuing up to Lulot Gardens.
Fig. 21: Informal Square at Sandstone Place (TD)
48

This reinterpreted feature is a key part of the Italian influence at HNT, drawing inspiration from the
discrete informal routes of hill-towns and potentially the divisions of the Etruscan hill-town (see 4.8).
It previously provided informal short-cuts between residences, the greens and other recreation
spaces, but is currently closed by locked gates at two of the intersections. The other north-south
route is the former bridle-path bordering Highgate Cemetery (Swenarton 2017: 112).
4.7.4 Tábori’s approach to ‘the street’ takes an essentially two-fold interpretation of public and private
relating to Chermayeff and Alexander’s Community and Privacy (Chermayeff & Alexander 1963
& Swenarton 2017: 112). In this, space is defined as public (beyond the front door) or private
(behind it) removing the need for any semi-private areas and in externalising stairs and accesses,
avoiding any no-man’s land of internal circulation such as stairwells and lifts. It might be argued
that the shared landings and entrances and the foot and head of stairs represent a semi-public
space given that whilst they belong to the public their proprietorship is really held by adjoining
neighbours. At the same time, they remain public by virtue of their visual connection and interplay
with street. This achieves both Jane Jacob’s notion of eyes-on-the-street and Tábori’s wish to avoid
interim circulation space whilst presenting something of Chermayeff and Alexander’s locks through
proprietorship (Jacobs 2011: 44-45 & Swenarton 2017: 127).
4.7.5 Tábori describes this approach in a note to head architect Sydney Cook,
“-Low rise, very high density low cost project. Pedestrian level continuous at level 2 (street). Direct
entry from street. Sense of identity: each front door having its own street number…. – Pedestrian
access by [sic] self-policing: helps community spirit [and] neighbourliness. Other measures to
reinforce social interdependence, e.g. handed front doors, terraces double as deep front courts,
kitchens look out onto approach/toddlers play (and neighbours’) and mutual awareness vis-à-vis
person on a street and from kitchens” (Swenarton 2017: 113).
Fig. 22: Informal Square, Seggiano, Tuscany (TD)
Next-
Fig. 23: External Stairs at Lulot Gardens (TD)
Fig. 24: External Stairs, Arcidosso, Tuscany (TD)
Fig. 25: Egg and Spoon Race, Stoneleigh Terrace (Jo McCafferty)
49

50

51

52

53

4.7.6 Tábori’s scheme as described to Sydney Cook demonstrates the mixture of retention and renewal
and Italian influence,
Site 1= Tuscan Hill-town
Site 2= Panhandle joined onto Site 1
Site 3= Chester Road to be worthy of retention. front retained, gutted, back-wall mirror to new built
Site 4= Refurbishment with strategic infill
Site 5= Ditto: difficult topology best related to refurbished adjoining sites, smaller new-built infill
(Swenarton 2017: 114)
4.8 The Hill-town at HNT
4.8.1 A tangible affinity with the Italian hill-town is apparent throughout HNT, seen in the open external
stairs, facing of blocks across the pedestrian-routes and discrete recreational areas comprising the
community spaces, play and recreation-areas and the greens. More detailed consideration of the
hill-town which originated with the Etruscans who occupied central Italy prior to the Romans, reveals
further shared elements incorporated into the design of HNT. The Etruscan hill-town had an axial
layout defined by an east-west street which under the Romans became known as the Decumanus
and a north-south street which became the Cardo. This layout is thought to have had religious
origins relating to the Etruscan’s God Tinia who sat in the North and gazed southward cleaving
each town, which creates the Decumanus. The intersections of these streets became known as
the Mundus under the Romans and typically provided the location for temples. This may reflect
the Etruscans’ conception of them as entrances to the Underworld but more practically the temple
provided the forum for everyday life and community (Barbacci 1987: 6-9). The grid-plan established
under the Etruscans, spread to prevalence under the Romans and remains as the basis of layout for
the hill-towns today (Barbacci 1987: 9-10 & Baron 2008: 5-10).
4.8.2 During the post-Roman period central Italy went into decline which was followed by a revival of
markets and industrial centres started from the 8th Century resulting in a population explosion from
the 10th Century onwards. This boom which lasted until the 13th-14th Centuries, increasing land
values through a scarcity of space in the hill-towns as populace grew and their being fortified with
town-walls restricted growth. This prompted largely unregulated infilling of the already narrow streets
and the creation of irregular piazzas. Inventive solutions sought to get more out of each building plot
creating the interlinking and compact relationships between properties which give the hill-towns their
sense of warmth and intimacy today (Barbacci 1987: 10-13).
4.8.3 The cut-through following the former route of Retcar Street, mimics the Etruscan Cardo, the eastwest
streets the Decumanus and perhaps most significantly the distribution of informal greens,
squares and recreation-spaces several Mundus or Mundi. Together, as part of the overall layout and
urban renewal and community-focused design, these aspects of the hill-town provide HNT with an
exotic ‘otherness’. This extends across the axial layout which situates the community and public-life
of HNT together with the greens, recreation and play-spaces. It combines continuity with Victorian
Highgate with the Etruscan layout and medieval detailing of elevated shared entrances and discrete
routes and stairs, providing neighbourliness which echoes that of the hill-towns today with their
sense of proprietorship over HNT’s streets.
4.9 Life at HNT
4.9.1 Discussions with residents through the WERA working group provided detail about life at Highgate
prior to HNT, during and since its construction. The account in this section is based upon those
recollections and some published sources, starting with life prior to HNT and then proceeding to the
current day. Recollections of Highgate prior to HNT record a mixture of smaller and larger Victorian
and Edwardian houses, with the smaller located around the former Retcar Street within HNT.
Shops at that time included a post-office/dairy, off-licenses, at least one sweetshop, a fish and Chip
shop, butchers, greengrocers, laundry and a working-man’s café, local employment included the
Livingstone Laboratories at Retcar Street and a paint factory at Dartmouth Park Hill and residents
from this time describe a tightknit working-class community of multi-generational families. (Pers.
Comm. Treherne: 2019).
4.9.2 Interviewees recalled the early ‘80s as a period of relative calm with no significant issues,
contrasting with local media who by April 1983 were portraying HNT as a problem estate. One
article ‘A Haven for Hoodlums’ which appeared in the St Pancras Chronicle describes residents
as living “in daily fear of robbery, burglary and vandalism’ and the Estate itself as ‘a warren of
lonely walkways and blind spots”. At the same time council officers described HNT as having a
“large number of potential hiding places for attackers who can then make their escape through
any one of the many entrances to the area”. These accounts contrast with the perceptions
54

of residents, revealing differences on-site and off-site and need to be seen in the light of the
wider trend for ‘defensible space’ which saw many housing schemes condemned, regardless of
actual circumstances and subjected to redesign (Messenger 1983 & Municipal Dreams 2015).
Similar, media misrepresentation is recorded at other housing schemes from the period, such
as Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower (Campkin 2013 & Roberts 2017). It is not until the late ‘80s that
interviewees recalled problems developing with burnt-out cars and delinquency. They attribute this
to reductions in funding resulting in the removal of play-equipment and reduced services (such as
the electric delivery carts used in the early years), fencing and restriction of areas as part of efforts
to design out crime and wider societal decline at that time.
4.9.3 Interviewees described two major phases of improvements and maintenance, as well as a number
of minor interventions outside of these phases. The first phase took place in the early ‘90s and the
second between 2005-2007, at which time HNT was first submitted for listing by residents. The first
phase formed part of the wider scheme improvements to estates at that time and at HNT saw the
painting of concrete and doors which was executed to a poor standard, which rapidly deteriorated.
In the late ‘90s additional revisions belonging to this first phase, included new street-lighting and
grilles as part of designing out crime, restricting access, introducing overly bright conditions at
evening and impacting the aesthetic of HNT’s design. These works also saw the removal of playareas
and revision of community spaces, representing a serious impact.
4.9.4 The second major phase of works (2005-07) was more extensive, comprising water-proofing of
balconies and external decking and resurfacing of the street at Lulot Gardens. As part of the balcony
works recessed drain-pipes were set into side-walls and the floor area of the balconies was reduced
by the insertion of new gullies around the edges and plastic protections were added below the
concrete troughs. Extensive drilling was carried out across HNT to test the condition of concrete
and rebar, which apparently found no areas requiring remediation work and thereby indicating that
the condition of the buildings was good throughout. Residents from the working group and others
worked closely with the architects, engineers and contractors through monthly meetings whom they
report were receptive and supportive. However, they record that conditions were strained between
those undertaking the works and the client (Camden) with the former feeling that they were given
insufficient tender information and support to undertake the works, which resulted in their dismissal
and eventual replacement by Camden. Interviewees recall a high level of satisfaction with the
replacement contractors. In summing up the issues relating to the various works interviewees felt
that regular changes of staff resulted in a lack of clarity over responsibilities and roles and that there
was little understanding of HNT from either a technical or social/community level, which would have
improved their suitability and implementation.
4.9.5 HNT has remained under council control throughout the last 40 years, but was included in New
Labour’s efforts to transfer council ownership to housing associations (HA) around the time of the
Commonholds Act of 2002 (HMSO 2002). Deliberations regarding this were affected by intense
protests at the time from the Camden Federation (who were opposed to transfer) which resulted in
HNT remaining under Camden. Interviewees were undecided as to whether or not this was the right
decision, given that they have no experience of being managed as an HA.
4.9.6 There have also been positive episodes, such as MUF Architecture’s Whittington Estate play-spaces
installation in 2013, which through consultation with the children and families of HNT resulted in
the design and installation of a fountain, raised walkway and play-space in one of the greens.
Unfortunately, this has since fallen into disrepair owing to lack of maintenance and the fountain
and play equipment have been removed. Another recent success was the WERA raising funding to
replace play equipment at Stoneleigh Terrace, removed in the ‘90s.
4.9.7 Talking about HNT today interviewees discussed current events and their community. They talked
about community activities within HNT and with other communities at Camden and highlighting the
importance of community spaces. These include trips for residents using money from filming at
HNT, summer parties on the greens and other seasonal and occasional events. A particular asset in
this is the Garden-room their tenants meeting space, acquired after it was used as a site office for
the latter phase of work. This room is used regularly by different groups on the estate for recreation,
WERA meetings and other activities. Alongside the greens, regular use of the informal squares or
recreation-areas is evident in fine weather, with groups of residents who sit out and play in them in
the early evening and at weekends. The lack of programmed-use in the squares, recreation-areas
and greens provides an openness for residents to engage in a range of activities including sitting,
playing, sports and other games.
4.9.8 The interviewees also commented on the current installation of ‘Wood that Works’ a wood
workshop formerly located at the Highgate Community Centre, Winscombe Street (currently under
redevelopment) in the garages of HNT. They were positive to this and would like to see options for
further community amenities explored within the disused garage space, which might introduce more
of the amenity functions Tábori made provision for in Phase 2. 55

56

57

4.9.9 The working group included members of Camden’s District Management Committees (DMC) who
are engaged in representing HNT as part of Camden’s housing. They would like to see better
integration and structured communication through such channels, which reflects the need for
improved structure and support identified by the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Plan (DPNFNP
2016: 53).
4.9.10 This has changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling
properties to be bought) has seen a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. The community
includes individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few
who lived at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously challenged
the perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they
feel HNT has succeeded in carrying forward in several aspects, whilst acknowledging the reduction
in numbers of shops and other amenities. Rather than there being division, between tenants and
leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders
were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation in the
WERA and elsewhere with managing and developing this sense of community.
4.9.11 Wider relationships between the community at HNT and the surrounding area are sustained
through outings and trips with neighbouring housing schemes (recently a day-trip to Southend)
and also through engagement in The Camden Leaseholders Forum, the Camden Federation for
Private Tenants etc. This sees residents working for HNT and other housing estates, which helps
raise their profiles, share resources and attract advocacy for the various issues faced. A key topic
at workshops was how this might be better orchestrated through the WERA for example and
developed to better support communities. The residents who took part in the workshops had a
strong sense of connection to HNT as a place and sense of their community. Some were aware of
HNT’s history and many were keen to hear about it, presenting scope for developing this further
through projects and events.
4.9.12 Those who took part in the workshops are keen to see further support in developing tenants
and leaseholders as one community and also in building links to neighbouring groups and wider
representation within Camden. They are also pleased with the increasing recognition of their homes
as having qualities such as architectural merit and historical interest, which accords with their own
perception of HNT as a place to live. Those who are politically engaged are sensitive to the need
to develop diverse housing-models to ensure that the demographic mix is sustained long-term,
but because they regard the change as gradual do not view it as an urgent matter or crisis (Pers.
Comm. WERA Working Group: 2019).
4.9.13 In showing the long-term and continuing success of HNT, the above challenges the media view of
post-war housing and reveals the intrinsic importance of community in that success. This provides a
picture of a vibrant and vital place and community which is reliant on the opportunities for interaction
afforded by its community spaces and focus on external relationships.
4.10 Setting, Views and Patterns of Use
4.10.1 This section considers Setting and Views based upon current guidance as a means of
understanding the visual qualities at HNT (Historic England 2017). This provides a basis for
determining the impact of potential changes to buildings and space at HNT and providing
conservation policy which protects these qualities.It concludes with consideration of current patterns
of use at HNT to demonstrate the relationship between residents (users) and the built-environment.
4.10.2 At 214 ppa., the built-form of Highgate New Town Phase 1 is dense with non-housing areas forming
routes, shared spaces, the greens and a basketball court. Principal views are lateral, running east to
west along Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens, which from the
stepped entrances at Dartmouth Park Hill provide long vistas across to Highgate Cemetery and the
approach to HNT from Raydon Street. North - south views are shorter running between the terraces,
which being staggered, break some views into even shorter sections. Some views are essentially
incidental, creating a sense of connectivity with the surrounding streets, whilst others relate closely
to movement across HNT. The only through route/view is the diagonal access which marks the route
of the former Retcar Street, which has been blocked for some years. This and the route following
the former bridle path adjacent to Highgate Cemetery have historic precedent, replicating the line of
earlier thoroughfares and reflects that totality continuity in the scheme. The north-south routes/views
provide permeability of movement and a visual connection to Raydon Street, through the stepped
alleyways from Stoneleigh Terrace. In addition to which the balconies, external stairs and ramps
introduce a vertical aspect providing views over the different public-spaces.
58

Previous- Fig. 26: Evening at the Greens (TD)
Fig. 27: Historic Views (TD)
Next- Fig. 28: Lulot Gardens towards DPH (TD)
Fig. 29: Entrance to Stoneleigh Terrace (TD)
Fig. 30: Protected view between Cemetery and Stoneleigh Terrace
(TD)
Fig. 31: Stoneleigh Terrace towards Cemetery (TD)
59

60

61

4.10.3 Views from neighbouring streets provide glimpses through the alleyways between Raydon Street
and Stoneleigh Terrace. There was previously a degree of inter-visibility between HNT and Highgate
Cemetery, which is today screened by mature planting. However, inter-visibility between HNT
and the cemetery remain in the expansive views of the cemetery afforded from the south of the
former bridle path and the elevated walkways above the inclined approach from Raydon Street
along Stoneleigh Terrace. The incline along Stoneleigh Terrace provides a key view into HNT from
the cemetery gates at Raydon Street, contrasting with both the stepped accesses from Raydon
Street along Stoneleigh Terrace and the gateway entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill. The gateway
entrances where their stairs, access and ramps and gantries meet, command views over the
Girdlestone Estate and Whittington Hospital and with their clear affinity with the gates of the hilltowns,
are a practical means of accommodating the underground parking required by the MHLG.
4.10.4 The views, setting and patterns of use at HNT are intertwined in a sense of intimacy and community
across the outdoor space. Key examples being the paired-entrances to dwellings and the bridges at
the upper level and the walkway views over Highgate Cemetery from Stoneleigh Terrace. A broader
sense of shared amenity is present in the public-spaces and greens, which are all small enough to
have some intimacy. Residents discussed a sense of ownership or proprietorship over the spaces
near their own residences and a general sense of liberty of use in which they feel comfortable to use
the different spaces. Within this they are in some ways local to the different terraces. Practically, the
choice of routes from residences, along the street, down to Raydon Street or Dartmouth Park Hill,
via steps or to other areas of HNT via squares and cut-through routes provides immediate access
and avoids lengthy circulation. At the same time the logical axial layout is easily readable.
5 Heritage Values
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Heritage significance is defined in NPPF Annex 2 as: ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future
generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural,
artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also
from its setting.’ Current national guidance for the assessment of the significance of heritage assets
is provided in Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management
of the Historic Environment (Historic England 2008). This guidance establishes significance is
weighing consideration of the potential for the asset to demonstrate the following value criteria:
Evidential value. Deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
Historical value. Deriving from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be
connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative.
Aesthetic value. Deriving from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place.
Communal value. Deriving from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom
it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with
historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific
aspects.
5.1.2 This section draws together baseline data (set out above) to present HNT in terms of these four
value categories.
5.2 Evidential Value
Evidential value derives from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.
5.2.1 The Evidential value of HNT is in its achievement as community-focused design which successfully
produces an open space/route strategy by reconciling the qualities of the Italian hill-town with
continuity with Victorian Highgate. This is achieved with a tangible sense of informality and
intimacy, through careful arrangement of discrete public and semi-public areas and a clear sense
of proprietorship over ‘street’ which sets it apart from the other Camden housing schemes built
under Sydney Cook. Its design realises ‘eyes on the street’ and other ideas concerning community
safety and surveillance from Jacobs in the democratic spirit of the open-society sought by Team 10,
the Smithsons, Jaap Bakema and others. This is achieved in part by interpreting Chermayeff and
Alexander’s practical application to design which moves from intention to realisation of a scheme
which places the anonymous client of the resident community centre stage. Considered together
with the diverse influences of Richard and Su Rogers, Goldfinger, Lasdun, Brown and others HNT
with its eclectic mix of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-town, makes a highly significant contribution
to the housing of the period.
62

5.2.2 This community-focused design and success in providing for the ‘anonymous client’ in the resident
community represent HNT’s most significant and lasting achievement. Through the workshops with
the residents’ working group and 40 years of hindsight, it has been possible to see how Tábori’s
design has achieved Habraken’s assertion and made “provision for what cannot be foreseen”
resulting in a scheme which is and remains successful in “creating the rules for a game designed to
make creativity possible” (Cupers 2016: 173).
5.2.3 In drawing together various elements from his experience as an architect Tábori arguably achieves
something which Richard Rogers and Team 4 were unable to do, executed with attention to detail,
variety and execution, which make it an exemplary achievement. Within the canon of late ‘60s
housing HNT as a living piece of heritage represents the realisation of something striven for by the
greater number of architects and planners as well as thinkers such as Foucault and Lefebvre in this
period. As such, its value as physical evidence, which has translated into lasting value is closely
integrated with its historical and communal values, makes it a key part of post-war heritage.
5.3 Historical value
Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be
connected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative.
5.3.1 HNT’s historical value and interest relates closely to its evidential value and contribution to a
critically important chapter of Post-war housing. Tábori’s drawing together diverse influences and
experience, at HNT have potential to inform on the wider context of post-war architectural and
planning development, HNT’s contribution to Camden’s housing and the individuals who influenced
him. As a surviving built-project HNT doesn’t just emulate these influences but succeeds in
redefining them into a consistent whole.
5.3.2 It is possible to read in HNT the individual relationships with the Rogers and Team 4, Ernö
Goldfinger, Denys Lasdun, Neave Brown and the wider influence of Jacobs, Team 10, the
Smithsons, Bakema and Chermayeff and Alexander as well as indirect influence from Lloyd-Wright,
Paul Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc. HNT forms a key part of the legacy of Sydney Cook and
Camden Architects within which the combination of different influences and diverse elements from
Italian hill-towns and Victorian Highgate represents something unique from the other schemes of the
period at Camden or elsewhere. It both compliments and contrasts with Alexandra Road, to which it
is often compared, and the other Camden projects, at the same time as realising the public-private
dynamic needed as the groundwork for community-life, with the rigorous technical standards and
environmental engineering in its own way. Environmentally, it is significant in not being paralleled in
the other schemes at Camden by Brown and others, which marks HNT as one of the first housing
designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the need to protect the planet.
5.3.3 HNT’s place within the legacy of Post-war housing, is confirmed post-construction by its developing
success as a residential project. Despite extensive changes to Scheme 2 and the provision of
amenities intended, HNT has maintained a consistent satisfaction from residents, who enjoy and
appreciate the provisions of its design. Two periods of frustration are included in the this, in the ‘90s
and 2000s when problematic works were implemented to improve and maintain the buildings. The
latter of these prompted the 2006 Listing application. Excluding these two periods the story has
been one of incremental impact through successive minor interventions, which may explain why
HNT has not garnered the attention needed for listing until now. Whilst this period post-construction
largely pertains to its communal value (see under) that story forms a vital part of HNT’s historical
value, not least in its revealing what transpired for the “anonymous client”.
5.3.4 The quality and importance of HNT is increasingly recognised both in England and abroad. It is a
powerful icon of the optimism and idealism that underpinned post-war public sector architecture.
This is well evidenced by the 2019 RIBA-funded project undertaken by Karakusevic Carson
architects, which included HNT in its selection of nine exemplar housing schemes taken from the
US, UK and Europe. The intention is that the projects selected might contribute to a possible model
for densifying the periphery of London as stipulated by the current London Plan, indicating the
potential to learn from HNT. These were presented at the Barbican’s recent Revolutionary Low-Rise
exhibition (www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/architecture-on-stage-revolutionary-low-rise).
5.3.5 Beyond this, HNT is increasingly visited by architectural students and practitioners, visiting London
from across the World, reflecting gathering interest and opinion concerning its architectural and
societal achievement. Within which HNT is Tábori’s most outstanding achievement as a pioneering
architect.
63

5.4 Aesthetic Value
Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation
from a place.
5.4.1 HNT’s distinctive tactile and intimate aesthetic, combining the familiarity of continuity and exoticism
derived from hill-towns, is manifest throughout its streets, stairs and other routes. It stands in
contrast with the more abstract conceptual forms of other housing built under Sydney Cook (1965-
73). This is potentially at its most distinctive in the distribution and character of discrete community
spaces, greens and other communal meeting points, which invite both use and a sense of
proprietorship. The sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted with timber
window surrounds form a key part of this more organic presentation, hinting at Georgian or Neo-
Classicism, combining to produce the aesthetic mix of strong ‘60s Modernism and materiality drawn
from to the Victorian and earlier surroundings. The informality of the external environment contrasts
with the ‘mysterious and formal’ interiors of the residences with their heady mix of Goldfinger at
Willow Road and ideas drawn from contemporary influences such as Hodgkinson, Brown and
Chermayeff and Goldfinger and Tábori’s Hungarian background. The external wooden window
surrounds provide a hint of the dark wood detailing of the interiors and in doing so link exterior and
interior in a similar manner to the eyes on the street relationship between kitchens and street.
5.4.2 Entering HNT from the hill-town gate-like entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill, there is a sense of
elevation over neighbouring streets. This contrasts with the gentle inclined approach passing the
taller houses along Stoneleigh Terrace or the informal stepped alleyways leading up from Stoneleigh
Terrace. All three have clear precedents in the hill-towns and are instrumental in the exoticism of
HNT. Within HNT the close relationships between private and public-space provide an informal
warmth and intimacy, with a distinct sense of community. The lateral layout of the streets connecting
to the different shared spaces presents a clearly legible layout within which movement and
recreation are clearly delineated. This sense of proprietorship and definition of place in which it is
difficult not to acknowledge others whilst walking around, providing a close link to HNT’s communal
value. Discussion with residents revealed that their perception of this aesthetic is intrinsically linked
with its sense of use and the manner in which the streets, squares, greens and meeting points
provide places for recreation and interaction. Alongside this the buildings falls into the background,
providing the setting for the activities of daily-life, confirming the externality of life at HNT.
5.5 Communal Value
Communal Value derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom
it figures in their collective experience or memory. Communal values are closely bound up with
historical (particularly associative) and aesthetic values, but tend to have additional and specific
aspects.
5.5.1 Communal value at HNT relates principally to its residents, but also extends to residents from the
neighbouring streets, visitors and others from further afield. The understanding of HNT’s communal
value through the workshops and interviews revealed a diverse community at HNT, which has
changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling properties
to be bought) included a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. This community includes
individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few who lived
at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously seek to challenge
the perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they
feel HNT has succeeded in carrying forward. Rather than there being division between tenants and
leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders
were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation with
managing and developing this sense of community.
5.5.2 For these residents, the communal value of HNT is intrinsically linked to and a result of its design
through the sense of proprietorship over and liberty to use the various ommunity spaces and
streets. This is assisted by the proximity and linking of private and public space through the paired
entrances, externality of community life and the tangible visual relationship between dwellings
and street with the sense of informality this creates. Residents described how this supports the
regular and diverse use of these spaces with the number of areas allowing multiple groups and
activities to be out at once. They feel the opportunity this is key in underpinning community at HNT
and how this relies on their upkeep and maintenance. Central in this, are the various communityspaces,
principally the squares and greens, which are largely unprogrammed. These allow informal
interaction on a daily basis as well as siting planned events, when needed. They provide the
physical arena for a range of activities which build and maintain contact between residents and as
such are most significant in the long-term success of HNT.
64

5.5.3 The connection to place felt by residents and their keenness to engage with place and community at
HNT reflects the successful outcome of Tábori’s intentions to provide appropriable space at design
which the community can take proprietorship over demonstrating a high level of significance in
communal value. In the words of Dutch architect and theorist John Habraken in his 1972 publication
Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing this seeks to “try to make provision for what cannot be
foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016:
173).
5.6 Group Value
Group value derives from associative or cumulative value of a place in relation to its wider context;
through time-period, architect, type etc.
5.6.1 HNT’s relates principally to its achievement in community-focused design, as an LRHD project, as
part of the housing produced by Camden Architects under Sydney Cook. Within this HNT represents
the crowning achievement of Peter Tábori as one of the most capable architects of the time, making
it one of the most significant projects built at Camden. In responding to ‘50s disenchantment with
mixed-development and the high-rise and as part of the habitat and community-focus espoused by
Jacobs, Chermayeff, Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema etc. it distinguishes itself as an exemplar
achievement. This is further supported in consideration of its achieving things that Tábori various
mentors and influences were unable to do. With its use of terracing and other pre-Modernist
devices, shared with Brown and others, it belongs to a wider reappraisal of pre-Modernist and
vernacular architecture, within which the combination of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-town
achieves something unique. Similarly, the technical innovation learnt from Goldfinger, Rogers,
Lasdun etc. includes aspects of environmental control and accessibility, which were pioneering
at that time. HNT distinguishes itself in these various group associations and makes a significant
contribution in all cases.
Fig. 32: Residents at evening at Sandstone Place (TD)
65

6 The Residents Working Group Workshops
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This section provides a thematic account of the topics for conservation guidance raised during
the workshops and the process by which this was achieved. The topics are presented in relation
to local and other policy and guidance as well as other initiatives such as the Dartmouth Park
Neighbourhood Plan. It concludes by setting out these topics as policy for inclusion under Sub-Area
5 of the DPCA.
6.1.2 The topics for conservation guidance were put together by the WERA working group (comprising
members of the WERA and other residents) at the June 2019 meeting, which considered the
development of HNT and discussed past and current issues. This provided valuable insights into
life at HNT which were then developed through the second workshop which took the form of an
informal group session with longer-term residents to broaden the understanding of those issues and
how they and their management has developed over time (see 4.9). The final session in November
2019 considered the draft report and presented the conservation guidance being put forward and
the case for Listing. The draft report and conservation policies were reviewed and discussed with
approval for a final version and preparation of summaries for circulation to all residents of HNT.
In addition to the ongoing feedback via the working group and the WERA, this would provide all
residents the opportunity to approve and comment prior to submitting the conservation guidance
and the application for Grade II* Listing. The report, conservation guidance and application for
Listing were then finalised on the basis of this.
6.1.3 The topics include;
Buildings and external space,
Community spaces, green-space and recreation,
Technical installation and environmental controls
Amenity space and community events,
Gardening and Pruning,
Refuse and Recycling,
Signage and maps,
Cooperation
6.2 Basis of Approach
6.2.1 The conservation guidance seeks to develop the role that residents at HNT play in determining the
outcome of initiatives and maintenance and implement measures which take better care of HNT;
the outcome of which would be of benefit to the community, buildings and external environment as
a whole. This is in line with provision for empowering communities as set out under the Localism
Act, Camden Local Plan and Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum etc. (DPNFNP 2016: 53). For
community members an increased stake in process can help ensure that measures are appropriate
for the needs of the community and support that community in taking care of the place where
they live (Knox 2005 & Davies 2019). Collective engagement as provided through the workshops
serves as a platform/vehicle for views and accounts of events to be shared and discussed helping
to build community-ties and awareness. This supports tenants and leaseholders in continuing to
develop as an integrated community through its potential to build shared knowledge about HNT and
how its buildings and spaces work technically and socially. This can inform community initiatives
and help resolve difficulties in the management of HNT with Camden and others. In this it makes
a clear contribution to preventing inappropriate interventions to buildings and spaces. Given that
infrastructure is already present at HNT in the WERA, the working group, memberships of the DMC
etc. this conservation guidance seeks to support these groups in their work at HNT and support their
development.
6.3 Buildings and External Space
6.3.1 Discussion of the built environment at HNT started from its community-friendliness, with residents
talking about how they use space and how this encourages contact between neighbours. Specifics
included the paired entrances and oversight of public-areas from kitchens and balconies. During
discussion of the Georgian character of the yellowed limestone-mix concrete (currently painted
over in several areas) and the influence of Victorian Highgate and Italian hill-towns residents
raised concerns over the cumulative impacts of inappropriate interventions overtime. This includes
cabling, ducting and other services (much of it redundant) which has gradually spread across
HNT, screening and fencing of areas (with various impacts) and the inappropriate lighting added
66

Fig. 33: A damaged cabinet (TD)
during the earlier phases of works. It was agreed that much of this has a detrimental impact on
the character of HNT and that to date there have been no efforts to address implementation, limit
impact and visual intrusiveness nor to remove redundant installations. Whilst redundant services,
were seen as a universal negative as was inappropriate lighting, it was felt that some of the
screening and fencing is needed requiring consideration on a case basis. It was resolved that there
is a need to review these elements, in terms of their impact and function and implement appropriate
measures. There was also unanimous support for reopening of the cut-through route following the
former line of Retcar Street, which would return both aspects of HNT’s original design and a useful
route into play. This could be implemented as part of repairs to ramps and slopes required generally.
Residents were also keen to see repair and maintenance of recent works at HNT, particularly the
MUF sculpture, fountain and play-area.
6.4 Community Spaces, green-space and recreation
6.4.1 Discussion of community-spaces, green-space and recreation focused on three areas, the hardstanding
recreation-spaces or squares, the greens at the centre of the estate (currently fenced-off)
and interaction in HNT’s streets and the entrances to residences. Residents recalled that the greens
were fenced-off as a temporary measure to remedy contamination from dog-fouling. They currently
have limited access and residents would like to see them reopened. This should be done in
consultation with residents to determine use within the greens and which areas are fully or partially
reopened. Together with the community spaces provided by the squares, they provide space for
important community events and day to day recreation. The removal of play-equipment from some
of the community spaces (principally that at Lulot Gardens and the sloping entrance to the car-park
at Stoneleigh Terrace) was also discussed, with residents feeling that it has reduced the offer for
families. This included an account of the WERA having raised money in recent years for the playarea
at the centre of Stoneleigh Terrace, independently of Camden Council. It was resolved that a
review of play and recreation opportunities within HNT is needed. This is particularly important given
67

it’s as a priority under Local Plan Policy A2 Open Spaces- “f. conserve and enhance the heritage
value of designated open spaces and other elements of open space which make a significant
contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas or to the setting of heritage
assets” (Camden 2017).
6.5 Technical installation
6.5.1 Discussion of technical installation considered the environmental-design, through-water and heating
systems and the thermal regulation of internal temperatures and plans for winter-gardens (enclosed
balcony terraces). The heating and water systems are comprehensive networks running throughout
HNT. In particular, the efficiency of the water system which has been impaired by incompatible
localised alterations, resulting in loss of pressure in many homes because they are applied locally
without consideration to the system as a whole. Detailed drawings and information are available
of these systems which could help ensure the design of future interventions and maintenance are
compatible. It was resolved that a package of available technical information about these systems
is needed and that its review should be mandatory in advance of any future works to technical
aspects. Given the problems some residents are currently experiencing with supply it was also felt
that efforts should be made to remedy that as opportunities arise.
6.6 Amenity space and community events
6.6.1 Seasonal, regular and one-off events emerged as a key topic through discussion of use of the
external environment, with two examples given being Halloween and summer parties. Discussion
considered how this might be developed in terms of current space, siting and provision. Currently
events utilise the greens for outdoor events and HNT’s community spaces, the Garden-Room
for smaller, indoor occasions (such as WERA meetings). Beyond the current areas available for
events (shared-spaces, greens and the Garden-room) the extensive underground-parking required
under late ‘60s planning has limited use, which will be developed by Wood that works (carpentry
workshop) beyond which potential exists for further changes of use. It was resolved that discussion
with Camden about how much of the capacity might be made available for resident activities would
be desirable. It was also determined that the programme of current events and proposed events be
shared between the WERA and Camden Council to secure support and funding where possible.
6.7 Gardening and Pruning
6.7.1 Gardening and pruning emerged as a variable issue over time, which has been dependent on
funding and changing management strategies. It is felt that the frequency of maintenance has
reduced recently, which residents felt was likely the result of cutbacks. Whilst some residents have
taken the initiative to tend to areas of planting over the years and there is a willingness to contribute
in this way, reaching a consensus with Camden over responsibilities and roles is needed. Residents’
were positive to how their own engagement provides them with an active role in management,
planting and use of the spaces, but that this needs to be done with a clear picture of different
responsibilities, which needs discussion.
6.8 Refuse and Recycling
6.8.1 Refuse and recycling was brought into discussion through frustration over the current large green
refuse bins which are set out across the streets of HNT and collection arrangements introduced
by Camden in recent years. The current bins do not fit the bin-housing located under the stairs,
requiring them to be kept on the street. The principal issues with this are that they often block
shared spaces at the entrances in which neighbours meet and converse and are unsightly. Whilst
residents are sensitive to the new bins being standardised across the borough and too large to fit
the original housing, they are very keen to reclaim these spaces and that an alternative location
for the bins is found. They would like to see a review of the refuse and collection strategy, which
aims to limit impact to community-space as well as the built character of the HNT. This might see a
return to smaller containers (used elsewhere in Camden) which would fit the original bin-housing or
alternative storage arrangements being made for the existing containers, removing them from the
streets.
6.9 Signage and maps
6.9.1 Signage and maps were a specific issue for Tábori who sought to avoid aspects which define
housing as an estate and thereby establishing it as separate to its surroundings. As part of his
approach through urban renewal, the original street-signs were the same as those of neighbouring
streets and any need for maps should have been unnecessary because of the logical layout and
68

through-continuity with the surrounding area, providing readability. These signs were replaced at
some point with standard Camden signs whilst maps were added (of the same type) at various
entrances. This ‘labelling’ forms part of the work to modify public housing in the late ‘80s prompted
by the views of Alice Coleman and Oscar Newman (Coleman 1985). These views concerning
‘defensible space’ have received extensive criticism in recent years indicating a need to review
the effect of the interventions to design and layout they prompted. Residents are conscious of this
‘labelling’ given recent media discussion of how it marks housing schemes as separate to the areas
they belong to. It was resolved that a return to Tábori’s intention that HNT should not be singled
out in this manner, would be desirable, through the restoration of original signage and removal of
Camden Housing maps.
6.10 Cooperation
6.10.1 Residents at HNT are in the process of re-establishing the format of the WERA at present, following
a period of limited activity. There is also contact with the Tenants and Residents Association at
Highgate Stage 2C which could be developed and scope for cooperation with Chester Balmore
residents (the redeveloped Phase 2A&B). On the back of the recent Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood
Plan and forum the working group and the WERA are keen to see support for building this network
through the new estates Landlord scheme and other mediums.
6.11 Maintaining and Enhancing Highgate New Town’s Setting
6.11.1 Discussions concerning setting and views covered those detailed in this report, within which there is
little scope for additional structure, without significant impact to HNT ‘s character. Key impacts to the
setting of external space considered include the painting of facades and extent of cabling, pipes and
other services and clutter of shared space such as the refuse bins. Other issues regard the removal
of play-equipment and planting from areas which detract from their use and visual character. It was
resolved that the more detailed assessment of setting and views in this report be put forward for
inclusion in the DPCA.
6.12 Parameters for Acceptable Impact
6.12.1 Given the high occupation density at Highgate there is little scope for additional building/
densification without significant impact to public space. Given that density is already above
that of the neighbouring streets there is little argument for densification within the existing area.
Future impacts should instead relate to improvements to the external spaces, such as returning
and developing recreation and play-equipment and restoring the greens to their former use. One
particular asset in this is are the unused garage-spaces, within which the Wood that works scheme
presents a potential model. It was resolved that these priorities be adopted for new use and the
recreation-spaces be reviewed with HNT’s community.
Fig. 34: Fenced off play-area at the Greens (TD)
69

70

71

7 Draft Conservation Guidance and Policies
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The following section sets out Conservation Policies which should be adhered to ensure responsible
and sustainable management of HNT. Each proposed conservation policy is set out with relevant
policy and guidance from local to national level as per appendix 1.
7.2 Basis of approach
7.2.1 Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new
landlord service), Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20 th Century
Society for future support.
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan C1, C5, D2, E1 & DPCA)
7.3 Buildings and external space
Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint,
Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually,
Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street,
Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing,
Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens,
Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C5, C6, D2 &
DPCA)
7.4 Community spaces, green-space and recreation
Complete restoration of squares and greens and remove fencing,
Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack,
Consultation over use and maintenance of all community spaces (squares, greens and other
meeting points),
Implement improvements to community spaces,
Revise refuse and recycling regime,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6,
D2, CC2 & DPCA)
7.5 Views and visual amenity
View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street,
Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street,
Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot
Gardens to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections,
Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to define responsibilities
(Camden/residents) and establish clear management guidelines with resident input,
Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street
and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, C1, C5, C6, D2 &
DPCA)
7.6 Technical installation (heating, lighting and water)
Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems,
Remedy incompatible elements,
All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service
infrastructure to ensure compatibility,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan C1, C6, D2, CC2 &
DPCA)
Previous- Fig. 35: Pedestrian Entrance from the East (TC/MS) 72

7.7 Amenity space and community events
Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space,
Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area as
well as Camden Council,
Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes,
Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses,
Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6,
D2, E1, CC2 & DPCA)
7.8 Gardening and Pruning
Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and
Camden,
Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6,
D2, CC2 & DPCA)
7.9 Refuse and Recycling
Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original binhousing
can be made,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6,
D2, CC2 & DPCA)
7.10 Signage and maps
Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring
streets,
Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something nonvisually
intrusive,
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, C1, C3, C5, D2, CC2
& DPCA)
7.11 Cooperation
Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community,
Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile,
Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc.
(Justification under: NPPF Section 12, Localism Act, Camden Local Plan A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6,
D2 & CC2)
8 Adoption & Review
8.1.1 The Conservation Policies remain draft at this stage, requiring review by the client and statutory
consultees for approval. Once approved the final list of Conservation Policies will then be included
under Sub-Area 5 of the DPCA for future management.
8.1.2 Following this the WERA in conjunction with residents will periodically be allowed to review the
current guidance to identify potential improvements and revision to address future developments.
73

Table 2: Proposed Conservation Policies for inclusion in DPCA.
Proposed Conservation Policies
Basis of Approach
Develop joint consultation body/arrangement comprising WERA, Camden Council (through new landlord service),
Friends of Highgate Cemetery and contacts with Historic England/20th Century Society for future support
Buildings and external space
Audit and removal of redundant services (cabling and ducting) and paint,
Review in-use services (cabling & ducting) to see if it can be improved visually,
Remove gates and reopen route along the former line of Retcar Street,
Replace lost features such as original lighting and exterior detailing,
Repair MUF Architecture play-space and fountain at the greens,
Repair access ramps and slopes at all levels,
Community Spaces, green-space and recreation
Complete restoration of squares and greens and remove fencing,
Return play-equipment to the area adjacent to parking ramp and district-heating stack,
Consultation over use and maintenance of all community spaces (squares, greens and other meeting points),
Implement improvements to community spaces,
Revise refuse and recycling regime,
Views and visual amenity
View along Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street,
Visual amenity of stepped accesses from Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street,
Entrances with walkways from Stoneleigh Terrace, Sandstone Place, Retcar Place and Lulot Gardens
to be managed for trees and kept open for visual connections,
Trees and vegetation on greens (Sandstone Place and Retcar Place) to be pruned and slightly reduced
to open up through views,
Maintain (keep open) incidental visual connections between Stoneleigh Terrace and Raydon Street
and from HNT to Highgate Cemetery,
Technical installation (heating, lighting and water)
Review existing and ongoing interventions for compatibility with systems,
Remedy incompatible elements,
All future interventions to be informed by plans and information concerning existing service infrastructure
to ensure compatibility,
Amenity space and community events
Community consultation concerning existing use and aspirations for additional/future use of space,
Prepare audit material for public-circulation to inform groups at Highgate and surrounding area
as well as Camden Council,
Review use of Garden-room with survey of residents to determine wishes,
Develop existing programme to include new and developed uses,
Discuss options on available underground car-parking space for community use,
Gardening and Pruning
Review gardening and maintenance to determine and share responsibilities between TRA and Camden,
Develop programme for management of trees and planting at greens and across HNT
Refuse and Recycling
Review existing refuse and recycling arrangements to see if a return to using the original bin-housing can be
made,
Signage and maps
Replace existing signage with equivalent to original scheme or one that matches the neighbouring streets,
Remove estate-maps and if replaced use WERA information boards to provide something non-visually intrusive
Cooperation
Develop connections with TRA’s and RA’s at Phase 2, Chester Balmore and wider community,
Draw in focus on HNT as place and community through future events and process to raise profile,
Disseminate information through a variety of channels- information boards, social-media etc.
74

National
Planning Policy
Framework
(NPPF)
Localism
Act (2011)
Camden Local Plan
Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C5, D2, E1 & DPCA/DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/
DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C5, C6, D2 & DPCA/DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies C1, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, E1, CC2 & DPCA/
DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/
DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPCA/
DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, C1, C3, C5, D2, CC2 & DPCA/DPNF
Section 12 Yes Policies A2, A3, C1, C3, C5, C6, D2, CC2 & DPNF
75

9 Application for Grade II* Listing
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 This section sets out the application for Grade II* Listing in recognition of HNT’s nationally important
heritage significance. It presents HNT’s importance within the UK’s post-war housing, Peter Tábori’s
exceptional design, within which HNT is recognised as the outstanding flagship scheme and the
architectural and social context to which it belongs as a highly successful housing scheme with a
vibrant community that continues to develop today. In doing this, it achieves both excellence in the
architectural and planning thought of the 1960s and in today’s aspirations for sustainability and
socially responsible design. The evidence for this is in the detailed understanding we now have of
HNT and Tábori’s work through his background and the wider context drawn from Mark Swenarton’s
research and the work carried out specifically for this study. It is made on the basis of the
exceptional heritage values at HNT, the importance of retaining community spaces for its community
and strong resident support from HNT’s community.
9.1.2 The application is made on grounds of the threat and ongoing cumulative negative impact of
interventions and maintenance which are detrimental to the character of HNT and that Grade II*
Listing is required to reflect the current understanding of HNT. In doing this it addresses relevant
criteria from the DCMS requirements under Listing buildings of special Architectural and Historic
Interest (DCMS 2018) (See Appendix 2). It also aligns with priorities under the Historic England
Listing Group’s programme of works focusing on Post-war buildings and Historic England’s Strategic
Listing Priorities as a Post-war Landscape for the external aspects of HNT.
9.1.3 In particular, it addresses the conclusion of the rejection letter in response to the 2006 Listing
application that, “It [HNT] has architectural interest for the striking, tiered south elevations of the
blocks, but this approach was not innovative and the design of the other elevations is unremarkable”
and that “The interior fittings and finishes are typical of their time and do not have particular merit”
(EH 2006). The current understanding of HNT demonstrates that this is not the case and as such
meets the grounds for review set out under the 2006 response that this would be undertaken
where “there is significant evidence which was not previously considered, relating to the special
architectural or historic interest of the building, as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.” The 2006 assessment was carried out at a time when no
substantive historical research had been undertaken on HNT and the only information available was
that which had been published at the time. Hence it was unable to consider the overall qualities and
holistic design of HNT through its innovative spatial layout and contribution to social structuring as
a scheme, because of the limited understanding available and a more material focus in heritage
appraisal at that time.
9.1.4 Current heritage practice (particularly with relation to 20 th Century buildings) is concerned with the
‘essence’ and significance of places considered through their form, function, use and relationship
to user which in light of recent research requires reassessment (Powers 2001). In HNT’s instance,
essence, form and function are entirely bound up with its community making their views as the
anonymous client of Tábori’s design intrinsically important. The 2006 response acknowledges the
character of facades, terraces and balconies, but disregards all other aspects both materially and
in terms of their significance or essence as part of the whole. By example, internal inspection was
minimal, concluding that the interiors were only standard to housing of the period, which ignores
their innovation in use, layout and design/aesthetic. This is similarly applicable to the consideration
of external aspects which make little or no comment of its innovative design, use and community
nor the wider context (of post-war planning thought etc.) to which it belongs. Rejection of the 2006
application was justified on the basis that it was of insufficient merit and that its inclusion under the
DPCA would adequately safeguard its heritage character (EH 2006).
9.1.5 The basis for threat from the cumulative negative impact on the character of HNT and the quality of
life of its residents from ongoing inappropriate interventions and works is established under Historic
England’s Listing Guidance,
‘We strive to consider assets which are genuinely under threat of demolition, major alteration or
destructive neglect where designation could make a difference, and will regard such cases as
priorities. A major alteration is regarded as one likely to compromise the significance of an asset.
We encourage people to put in applications as early as possible when there is a threat to allow us
time to establish the status of the asset. (HE 2017).
Adjacent- Fig. 36 Steps from Stoneleigh Terrace to Raydon Street (TD)
76

77

78

79

9.2 Summary of impact at HNT
9.2.1 Inspection of buildings and external areas across HNT in 2018-19 identified several areas and types
of interventions which have an ongoing cumulative negative impact. This includes the cabling and
ducting for lights and services which is often cut into buildings and remains in-situ after active use,
the removal of play-areas, fencing of greens and closure of routes, such as that following the former
Retcar Street which negatively impact the flow and use of space of the squares and routes as well
as visual connections central to the design of HNT. The importance of these community-spaces for
residents means their partial closure and lack of maintenance have a particularly significant impact
on daily life at HNT. Given a scarcity of community-spaces of this quality more widely in London and
a lack of funding and support for those that do exist, this represents a key issue.
9.2.2 Other impacts include the replacement of the original bins and bin-housing outside residences
with the large portable containers which obstruct spaces intended for communication and
neighbourliness and impact the visual aesthetic of HNT. Similarly, the standardised signage
and maps introduced by Camden which mark HNT out as an ‘estate’, contribute to a sense of
separateness and conflict with Tábori’s intention that HNT be an integrated part of Highgate. Other
impacts are of a technical nature, such as the alteration and installation of power-showers, etc.
which have impaired the delivery of HNT’s district water and heating systems. These demonstrate
a lack of knowledge about the design of these systems and how they function which could easily
be remedied. The most recent of these impacts comes from ongoing conversion of unused garagespaces
under Stoneleigh Terrace, for the Wood that works community facility which whilst wanted
by residents had insufficient funding for the grills which are features of the only façade detailed to
date as significant in the DPCA to be retained.
9.2.3 This cumulative impact should have been prevented by its Conservation Area status as part of the
DPCA, according to the 2006 Listing rejection (EH 2006). Whilst the adoption of the guidance set
out in this document for DPCA: Sub Area 5 will help address this, the current understanding of HNT
following recent research, clearly demonstrates a national level of significance which should qualify
HNT for Grade II* Listed status. As such, the following tests demonstrate the grounds to support
Grade II* Listing and provide the protection required of a Grade II* Listed asset to support the
conservation guidance being put forward for inclusion in the DPCA.
9.3 Justification for Grade II* Listing
9.3.1 In demonstrating the tests for Listing, the following demonstrates that HNT qualifies as a building
‘from the period after 1945’ which is of high significance (DCMS 2018: 19).
9.4 Architectural Interest
‘To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural
design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important
examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological
innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms’ (DCMS 2018: 16);
9.4.1 HNT’s embodiment of Tábori’s distinct approach to urban renewal, combining aspects of Victorian
Camden with the built-form and externality of the Italian hill-town to create community-focused
design, reveals it as an exemplar of the site-specific approach to housing. This is as much relevant
to the progressive trends at the time of its design as it is to notions of sustainability and community
today (Swenarton 2017 & Davies 2019 pubs). It includes the detailed consideration of how HNT
would function together with Phase 2 and the surrounding streets in creating a piece of city, which
is remarkable when looked at in terms of how its design has weathered the changes to the scheme
under development and remained successful in the long-term. HNT achieves a tangible sense of
informality and intimacy, through the careful arrangement of discrete public and semi-public areas
and a clear sense of proprietorship over ‘street’, with diverse and distinct areas which set it apart
from the other schemes built under Sydney Cook. This design makes manifest ‘eyes on the street’
and other ideas concerning community safety and surveillance from Jane Jacobs, Chermayeff and
the democratic spirit of ‘open-society’ sought by Team 10, the Smithsons and Jaap Bakema etc.
The interpretation of Chermayeff and Alexander’s applied practical approach enabled Tábori to
move from intention of design to its realisation in a scheme which places the anonymous client of
the resident community centre stage. When considered with the diverse influences of Richard and
Su Rogers, Goldfinger, Lasdun, Brown and others HNT, with its eclectic mix of Victorian Highgate
and Italian hill-town, occupies a distinct place within the housing built at Camden in the late ‘60s and
elsewhere.
Previous- Fig. 37: View east along Lulot Gardens (TC)
Next- Fig. 38: The Greens (TD)
80

9.4.2 Externally, this is most striking in the high-quality internal layouts and design which play into the
external space through full-length balconies and entrance bridges and stairs and kitchen windows
which forms an almost first-hand realisation of Jacobs’ ‘eyes on the street’. The layering of these
aspects all the way back to the affinities with the Etruscan origins of the hill-town produces a rich
landscape of buildings and appropriable space which are manifest throughout the externalisation of
stairs, routes, accesses and places of retreat.
9.4.3 Internally, the flexibility and reverse-plan (bedrooms below) is shared with Neave Brown’s Alexandra
Road, but aesthetically put to very different use. Similar, to Team 4’s Creek Vean, this realises key
principles from Chermayeff and Alexander concerning provision of privacy and separate spaces
to cater for families etc. The architectural pedigree of HNT develops further through Tábori’s
‘mysterious and formal’ treatment of the internal spaces relating to his Hungarian background
and experience working with Ernö Goldfinger (Swenarton 2017: 130). Whilst other aspects of the
interiors relate to contemporary thinking such as the use of full-height spaces by fellow Camden
architect Patrick Hodgkinson and Leslie Martin (Swenarton Et Al. 2015: 244). The technical finesse
and attention to detail throughout and the innovation of the varied internal plans, environmental
systems and services, derived in part from Richard Rogers and Denys Lasdun amongst others
are all instrumental in achieving this. This is particularly significant in not being paralleled in the
other schemes at Camden designed by Neave Brown and others, which marks HNT as one of the
first housing designs in the UK informed by the emerging consciousness of the need to protect
the planet. In all these aspects it is possible to see concerns and aspirations from the different
influences in Tábori’s background being executed in HNT. Critically, the 2006 rejection doesn’t
mention the diverse range of internal plans and solutions made possible by Tábori’s innovative
approach to creating different unit sizes.
9.5 Historic Interest
‘To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social,
economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally
important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the
building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing’ (DCMS 2018: 16).
9.5.1 HNT’s historical value and interest relates closely to its evidential value and contribution to a
critically important chapter of Post-war housing. Tábori’s drawing together diverse influences and
experience, at HNT have potential to inform on the wider context of post-war architectural and
planning development, HNT’s contribution to Camden’s housing and the individuals who influenced
him. As a surviving built-project HNT doesn’t just emulate these influences but succeeds in
redefining them into a consistent whole.
9.5.2 It is possible to read in HNT the individual relationships with Richard and Su Rogers and Team 4,
Ernö Goldfinger, Denys Lasdun, Neave Brown and the prevailing influence of Jane Jacobs. It also
occupies a tangible position within the holistic approach to architecture and planning championed
by Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema and Chermayeff and Alexander as well the background of
habitat thinking through Foucault, Lefebvre and others. This extends to the indirect influences of
Lloyd-Wright, Paul Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc, brough both through the Rogers connection and
Tábori’s own studies. HNT forms a key part of the legacy of Sydney Cook and Camden Architects
within which the combination of different influences and diverse elements from Italian hill-towns and
Victorian Highgate represents something unique from the other schemes of the period at Camden
or elsewhere. It both compliments and contrasts with Alexandra Road, to which it is often compared,
and the other Camden projects, at the same time as realising the public-private dynamic needed
as the groundwork for community-life, with the rigorous technical standards and environmental
engineering in its own way.
9.5.3 In the experience Tábori gained through his peers, Rogers’ provides a catalyst for both the
community focus, as a conduit to Chermayeff, and the technical focus on the potential of materials
through Rudolph, Eames, Soriano etc. This builds on Jacob’s influence which characterises the
whole scheme and is polished by with the attention to detail and technical standards from Goldfinger
and Lasdun. Brown’s influence as a colleague at Camden provides a final and crucial stage in
this development in offering opportunities to both learn and cooperate, providing more equal
ground, which allowed Tábori to test and experiment after arriving at Camden (Polygon Road and
Tábori‘s work on Alexandra Road). Given that neither of Team 4’s housing schemes were realised,
despite Rogers committed passion for housing, it seems that he took particular interest in Tábori’s
achievement at HNT. This adds to the evidence of Tábori‘s ability to learn from others and to refine
and articulate inspiration in his own work. Su Rogers ‘reviewing’ the as-then unbuilt HNT design in
AR (1973) provides just one further example of the support that the Rogers family was giving Tábori
at this time (Rogers 1973 & Pers. Comm. Swenarton: 2019).
81

External space at HNT the Greens
82

83

9.5.4 HNT’s importance in the legacy of Post-war housing, is confirmed by its long-term success. Despite
the extensive changes to Phase 2 and the provision of amenities intended, HNT has maintained
a consistent satisfaction from residents, who (through the workshops) enjoy and appreciate the
provisions of its design. Two periods of frustration are included in this, in the ‘90s and 2000s
during major improvement and maintenance works; the latter of which prompted the 2006 Listing
application. Excluding these, the story has been one of incremental impact through successive
minor interventions, which may explain why HNT has not garnered the attention needed for
Listing until now. Whilst this largely pertains to its communal value (see under) the story of HNT
as a community forms a vital part of HNT’s historical value, which reveals what transpired for
the “anonymous client” through Tábori‘s success in creating the public-private dynamic as the
groundwork for community-life, achieving the zeitgeist of late ‘60s architecture and planning and
remains a focus in planning today.
9.5.5 The quality and importance of HNT is increasingly recognised both in England and abroad. It is a
powerful icon of the optimism and idealism that underpinned post-war public sector architecture.
This is well evidenced by the 2019 RIBA-funded project undertaken by Karakusevic Carson
architects, which included HNT in its selection of nine exemplar housing schemes taken from the
US, UK and Europe. The intention is that the projects selected might contribute to a possible model
for densifying the periphery of London as stipulated by the current London Plan, indicating the
potential to learn from HNT. These were presented at the Barbican’s recent Revolutionary Low-Rise
exhibition (www.barbican.org.uk/whats-on/2019/event/architecture-on-stage-revolutionary-low-rise).
9.5.6 HNT is increasingly visited by architectural students and practitioners, visiting London from across
the World, reflecting gathering interest and opinion concerning its architectural and societal
achievement. Within which HNT is widely recognised as Tábori’s most outstanding achievement as
a pioneering architect.
9.6 Aesthetic merits
‘The appearance of a building – both its intrinsic architectural merit and any group value – is a key
consideration in judging listing proposals, but the special interest of a building will not always be
reflected in obvious external visual quality. Buildings that are important for reasons of technological
innovation, or as illustrating particular aspects of social or economic history, may have little external
visual quality’ (DCMS 2018:13).
9.6.1 HNT’s distinctive tactile and intimate aesthetic, combining the familiarity of continuity with its
surroundings and exoticism derived from hill-towns, characterises its streets, stairs and other
routes. This stands in contrast with the more abstract conceptual forms of other housing built under
Sydney Cook (1965-73) and is at its most distinctive in the distribution and character of HNT’s
community spaces, greens and other communal meeting points, inviting both use and a sense of
proprietorship. The sand-coloured concrete blocks and precast concrete, now painted with timber
window surrounds are key in this more organic presentation, hinting at Georgian or Neo-Classicism
references whilst combining to produce an aesthetic mix of strong ‘60s Modernism and materiality
drawn from to HNT’s earlier surroundings. The informality of the external environment contrasts with
the ‘mysterious and formal’ interiors of the residences with their heady mix of Goldfinger at Willow
Road and the ideas of Hodgkinson, Brown, Chermayeff and others as well as Tábori’s Hungarian
background. The external wooden window-surrounds provide a hint of the dark wood detailing of
the interiors and in doing so link exterior and interior in a similar manner to the eyes on the street
relationship between kitchens and street.
9.6.2 Entering HNT from the hill-town gate-like entrances from Dartmouth Park Hill, there is a sense of
elevation over neighbouring streets which contrasts with gently the inclined approach passed the
taller houses along Stoneleigh Terrace and the informal stepped alleyways from Raydon Street.
All three have clear precedents in the hill-towns and are instrumental in the exoticism of HNT.
Within HNT the close relationships between private and public-space provide an informal warmth
and intimacy whilst the network of streets and routes connecting the different shared spaces
forms an easily traversable and clearly legible layout, within which movement and recreation
are clearly defined. This sense of proprietorship and definition of place makes it difficult not to
acknowledge others whilst walking around, encouraging social contact. Discussion with residents
revealed that their perception of HNT’s aesthetic is intrinsically linked with its sense of use and the
manner in which the streets, squares, greens and meeting points provide places for recreation and
interaction. Alongside this the buildings form context, providing the setting for the activities of dailylife,
confirming the externality of life at HNT. This supports Tábori’s binary (twofold) interpretation
of public and private space. Whether the shared entrances, stairs, bridges etc. are viewed as
transitional semi-public or public space, by being external and visible from street, they interact in
public-life and that there is therefore no ambiguity of interim uncertain space at HNT.
84

9.7 Communal Value
9.7.1 Communal value is not included under the statutory tests for Listing, but as a core part of
HNT’s design is included in the Listing application by virtue of its being a key consideration. At
HNT communal value relates principally to its residents, but also extends to residents from the
neighbouring streets, visitors and others from further afield. An understanding communal value was
gained through the workshops and interviews, which revealed a diverse community at HNT. This
has changed over the years and since the introduction of Right to Buy (1980) (enabling properties
to be bought) has had a gradually increasing number of leaseholders. The community includes
individuals and families who have lived at HNT for the duration of its lifespan and a few who lived
at Highgate prior to the construction of HNT. Those who lived there previously challenged the
perception of pre-HNT Highgate as a slum, reporting a strong sense of community, which they
feel HNT has succeeded in carried forward in several aspects, whilst acknowledging the reduction
in numbers of shops and other amenities. Rather than there being division between tenants and
leaseholders the two groups seem to interact well, potentially because many of the leaseholders
were previously tenants who bought under Right to Buy and there is a general preoccupation in the
amongst residents with managing and developing this sense of community. Relationships between
the community at HNT and the surrounding area are an important part of this and are sustained
through outings and trips. Equally, representation through The Camden Leaseholders Forum, the
Camden Federation for Private Tenants etc. sees residents working for HNT and other housing
estates, which helps raise their profiles, share resources and attract advocacy for the various issues
faced.
9.7.2 The communal value of HNT is intrinsically linked to and a result of its design through the sense
of proprietorship over and liberty to use the various shared spaces and streets. This is assisted by
the proximity and linking of private and public space through the paired entrances, externality of
community life and the tangible visual relationship between dwellings and street with the sense of
informality this creates. Residents described how this supports regular, diverse use of these spaces
with the number of areas allowing multiple groups and activities to be out at once. They feel the
opportunity this presents, is key in underpinning community at HNT and how this relies on their
upkeep and maintenance. This emphasises the importance of the diverse community spaces at
HNT and the need to address their care and maintenance.
9.7.3 Communal value has been impacted during difficult periods, but has formed a constant attribute of
life at HNT. This is demonstrated by long-term residents saying that they didn’t recognise HNT in
negative reports in the local media in the early ‘80s, although they do acknowledge problems with
delinquent behaviour in the early ‘90s. The connection to place felt by residents and their keenness
to engage with place and community at HNT reflects the successful outcome of Tábori’s intentions
to provide appropriable space at design which the community can take a sense of proprietorship
over demonstrating a high level of significance in communal value. In the words of Dutch architect
and theorist John Habraken in his 1972 publication Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing this
seeks to “try to make provision for what cannot be foreseen” by “creating the rules for a game
designed to make creativity possible.” (Cupers 2016: 173).
9.8 Selectivity and National Interest
‘Where a building qualifies for listing primarily on the strength of its special architectural interest,
the fact that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is not likely to be a major
consideration. However, a building may be listed primarily because it represents a particular
historical type in order to ensure that examples of such a type are preserved. Listing in these
circumstances is largely a comparative exercise and needs to be selective where a substantial
number of buildings of a similar type and quality survive. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s
policy is to list only the most representative or most significant examples of the type’ (DCMS
2018:14).
9.8.1 Whilst HNT belongs to the Camden portfolio as an example of LRHD, the detailed understanding
from recent research reveals it as having a distinctive character marking it out from its peers. Whilst
there are clear affinities with Alexandra Road and certain other projects, Tábori’s background and
individual approach through urban renewal at HNT achieves community-focused design in a way
which is unique and of an organic and intimate character in which it stands in contrast with its
contemporaries. In the context of the habitat and community-focused architecture and planning
espoused by Jacobs, Chermayeff, Team 10, the Smithsons, Bakema etc. HNT represents an
individual and unique part of the surviving aspects of that heritage which is further supported in its
achieving things that some of Tábori’s influences were did not. It also relates to and informs on the
wider reappraisal of pre-Modernist and vernacular architecture, through the combination of Victorian
85

View along Highgate Cemetery from Lulot Gardens to Stoneleigh Terrace
86

87

Highgate and Italian hill-town and technical innovation of the time. Most important and testament
to this is HNT’s long-term and continued success in provision for the ‘anonymous client’ revealed
through working with its community during this study, delivering Habraken’s ‘unforeseen potential’
(Cupers 2016: 173).
9.8.2 Swenarton describes this in Cook’s Camden in this quote which tangibly reflects on the various links
to Etruscan and Italian heritage, Jacobs, Team 10, Chermayeff and Alexander, the Rogers family,
Lasdun and Goldfinger;
“Taking Brown’s model as a starting point, Tábori put his own stamp on it: replacing the no-entry
housing estate’ with the concept of ‘urban renewal’; using the Tuscan hill towns as a model of highdensity
dwelling; making the cluster the basis of the site layout; restoring the binary (public/private)
spatial division of the street; and organizing the interior on ecological lines, to benefit from solar heat
gain and minimise heat loss. Within the Camden ‘stable’, this amounted to a distinctive sensibility -
and a distinctive contribution to the architecture of street-based low-rise housing.” (Swenarton 2017:
135).
9.8.3 Through these diverse aspects, HNT demonstrates exceptional “special architectural or historic
interest” and makes a vital contribution to a representative account of post-war housing and
architectural and planning thought, which Tábori achieves by assimilating and refining his diverse
experience from some of the leading architects of the time to produce something unique from his
peers (DCMS 2018:15). As such it demonstrates clear national interest as a unique and in the
long-term successful example of late ‘60s housing warranting Grade II* Listing in recognition of its
achievement and in support of the conservation guidance to be included in the DPCA.
9.8.4 Some of the key characteristics can be summed up as follows;
Community-focused design through detailed attention to public-private relationships
Scale of ambition, perseverance and achievement in the face of changing requirements, support
and funding
Achievement in determining and delivering a scheme which accords with and provides for the
developing needs of its residents as anonymous client in the long-term;
Innovative approach to housing which combines continuity and community focus with Italian and
other influences, realising something distinct from its contemporaries
Provision of a unique layout of diverse community spaces forming a central resource in the quality
of everyday life for residents
High-standard of architectural design and execution drawing from various celebrated influences
Technical innovation in variation of dwellings, utilisation of slope and daylight and early provision of
accessibility
9.9 State of repair
‘The state of repair of a building is not a relevant consideration when deciding whether a building
meets the test of special interest. The Secretary of State will list a building which has been
assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair (DCMS 2018: 16).’
9.9.1 Whilst not a consideration in determining eligibility, listing of HNT would afford it statutory protection
needed to prevent further cumulative impact and a strong starting position for remedying that
impact.
Previous - Fig. 39: Former Bridal Way (now route) adjacent Highgate Cemetery (TD)
Fig. 40: Cycling along Stoneleigh Terrace (TD)
88

10 Conclusion
10.1.1 This study for community-led conservation Area guidance for HNT (for inclusion under Area 5 of
the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area Appraisal (Camden 2009) and an application for Grade
II* Listing has sought to demonstrate the need for and the nature of specific conservation area
guidance for HNT, which represents both place and community. The methods employed, are
aimed at establishing an approach that considers projects such as HNT with the communities for
whom they were designed. This realises the potential benefit of the community’s experience and
knowledge to ensure future care and longevity which optimises the opportunities for HNT as a place
and for those who live there to fully engage with it. In establishing the basis of threat and the case
for Grade II* Listing this study demonstrates a rich and comprehensively developed design, which
has borne out over time into a very successful housing scheme and warrants protection as part
of the UK’s national heritage. Whilst the conservation guidance seeks to determine how care and
support is implemented, Grade II* Listed status will recognise the national significance of HNT and
ensure the appropriate basis for that care in the long-term.
89

11 Bibliography
Appleyard, B. (1986) Richard Rogers: A Biography. Frome: Butler & Tanner Ltd.
Barbacci, N. (1987) Adaptive Re-use of a Medieval Complex in an Italian Hilltown: Civita di
Bagnoregio – Italy Columbia University
Baron, R.M. (2008). Castiglion Fiorentino: Re-thinking the Spirit of Place. openarchive.icomos.org
Boyer, C. (2018) Total Space and the Open Society. In Van den Heuvel, D. (eds.) Jaap Bakema and
the Open Society: Delft: Archgis Publishers. pp. 26-37
Chermayeff, S. & Alexander, C. (1963) Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of
Humanism. USA: Anchor Books
Camden Council (2009) Dartmouth Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Statement.
Camden
Campkin, B. (2013). Remaking London: Decline and regeneration in urban culture (Vol. 19). IB
Tauris.
CIfA 2014, Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment
Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on Trial. London: Hilary Shipman
Crane, A. & Ruebottom, T. (2011) Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder
Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 1 January 2011, Vol.102. pp. 77-87
Cupers, K. (2016) Human territoriality and the Downfall of public housing. Public Culture 29:1 Duke
University Press.
Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (2016) Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Engagement (Final).
London
Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum (2018) Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Consultation Draft.
London
Davies, T. (2019) A Social Excursion: a short trip around the heritage and community of Post-war
housing in London and Oslo. Boligforskning (Housing Research) in press
Davies, T. (2020) Defining new values for cavemen and finding the human in heritage. In Rönn, M.
& Grahn Danielson, B. Cultural heritage compensation: Approaches to transformation of sites with
cultural values and architectural qualities: Proceedings 2020. Kulturlandskapet & Architecture and
Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology pp. 79-103
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2011) The Localism Act. London:
HMSO
DCLG (2011) A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act. London: HMSO
Department for Digital Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) (2018) Principles of Selection for Listed
Buildings. London: HMSO
English Heritage (2006) Rejection Letter: Whittington Estate: RAYDON STREET, CAMDEN TOWN,
GREATER LONDON. London: English Heritage
Foucault, M. (1967) Translated from Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité no. 5 (1984). pp. 46-49.
Friedman, A.L. & Miles, S. (2002) Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies
39:1 January 2002
Hoffmann, O., & Repenthin, C. (1966). Neue urbane Wohnformen: Gartenhofhäuser,
Teppichsiedlungen (New Urban House Forms: Courtyard and terraced houses). Ullstein.
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (1990) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)
Act London
Historic England (2008) Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable
Management of the Historic Environment. London
Historic England (2017) The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic England (2017) The Setting of
Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (Second Edition).
Swindon: HE
Historic England (2017) Listing Process: Frequently asked Questions. London: HE
Historic England (2019) Conservation Area, Appraisal, Designation and Management. Swindon:
Historic England
90

Heritage Council of Victoria (2010) Conservation Management Plans: A Guide
HMSO (2002) Commonhold and Leaseholder Reform Act. HMSO
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
London
Heritage Lottery Fund, (2012) Conservation Plan Guidance
Heritage Lottery Fund (2012) Management and Maintenance Plan Guidance
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Jason Epstein. pp. 37-71
Jønsson, S. (2002) Projects and Core Values. In Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Søderholm, A. Beyond
Project Management: New Perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma (2002) Malmø: Ola
Håkansson and Nigel Pickard. pp. 126-150
Knox, P.L. (2005) Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World Journal of Urban Design,
Vol. 10. No. 1 1-11 February 2005
Lamster, M. (2010) LOMEX: Paul Rudolph’s Plan for Lower Manhattan. Design Observer
05.11.2010 Available at: https://designobserver.com/feature/lomex-paul-rudolphs-plan-for-lowermanhattan/21968
McKay, H. (2006) The Preservation and Presentation of 2 Willow Road for the National Trust. In
Sparke, P., Marton, B. & Keeble, T. (2006) The Modern Period Room: The Construction of the
exhibited interior. London: Routledge. pp.154-164
Messenger, T. (1983) ‘Haven for Hoodlums’, St Pancras Chronicle, 15 April 1983
Miller, B (2017) Homes boy: Sydney Cook’s Camden. Camden New Journal. 16 th November 2017
Municipal Dreams (2015) Highgate New Town: Dreams and Nightmares. [Accessed 24/10/2019
Available at [municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/highgate_new_town_dreams_and_
nightmares/]
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980) Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York:
Rizzoli.
Orillard, C. (2012) Gordon Cullen beyond The Architectural Review: some new perspectives from
his personal archives, The Journal of Architecture, 17:5, pp. 719-731
Petrescu, D. (2005) Losing Control, keeping desire. In Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J.
(2005) Architecture and Participation. Oxon: Spon Press. pp. 43-64
Powell, K. (1999) Richard Rogers: Complete Works Vol. 1. London: Phaidon Press Ltd.
Powers, A. (2001) Style or Substance: What are we trying to conserve? In Macdonald, S. (ed.)
Preserving Post-War Heritage: The Care and Conservation of Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture
and English Heritage (Shaftesbury: Donhead Publishing, 2001). pp. 3–11
Roberts, D. (2017) Make public: performing public housing in Ernő Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower. The
Journal of Architecture, 22:1, pp. 123-150
Su Rogers, ‘Preview: Highgate New Town’, Architectural Review, 154, 919 (September 1973), pp.
158-162.
Semple-Kerr, J. (2013) The Seventh Edition Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of
Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance Australia ICOMOS
Stevenson, F. & Petrescu, D. (2016) Co-producing neighbourhood resilience. Building Research &
Information, 44:7, pp. 695-702
Steyn, G. (2010) Re-Considering Le Corbusier’s Unfinished Projects. International Journal for
Housing Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 1 pp.15-35
Sudjic, D. (1994) The Architecture of Richard Rogers. London: Wordsearch Limited.
Swenarton, M. (2013) Politics, property and planning: building the Brunswick, 1958-74. Town
Planning Review, 84 (2) 2013. pp.197-226
Swenarton. M., Avermaete, T. & Van Den Heuvel, D. (2015) Architecture and the Welfare State.
Oxon: Routledge. pp.1-25
Swenarton, M. (2017) A City on a hill: Peter Tábori’s Highgate New Town. In Cook’s Camden: The
making of Modern Housing. London: Lund Humphries. pp.109-135
91

The Princes Regeneration Trust, (2009) How to: Write Conservation Reports
Till, J. (2005) The negotiation of hope. In Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. & Till, J. (2005)
Architecture and Participation. Oxon: Spon Press. pp. 23-41
Van den Heuvel, D. (2018) Post Box for the development of the Habitat. In Van den Heuvel, D.
(eds.) (2018) Jaap Bakema and the Open Society: Delft: Archgis Publishers. pp. 66-75
Van den Heuvel, D. (2018) Architecture and democracy – contestations in and of the open
society. In Van den Heuvel, D. (eds.) (2018) In Jaap Bakema and the Open Society: Delft: Archgis
Publishers. pp. 240-257
Watkinson, F. (2019) Hill Housing in Somers Town. Somers Town History Magazine. July 2019
Webb, S. (1972) Housing in Camden, Architectural Design, March 1972. pp. 145-164
Westminster Council (2012) 49 Conservation Area Audit: Lillington and Longmoore Gardens.
London
Willats, E.A. (1986) Streets with a Story: The Book of Islington. Islington Local History Education
Trust. Digital Edition (revised) (2017) Islington Heritage Service
Zimmermann, A. & Maennling, C. (2007) (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit)
Mainstreaming Participation: Multi-stakeholder management: Tools for Stakeholder Analysis: 10
building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Eschborn, Germany
Websites
National Heritage List for England: https://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list
Defra Magic https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Evolutionary Urbanism https://evolutionaryurbanism.com/2017/03/24/the-doorn-manifesto/
Personal Communication
Mark Swenarton
WERA Working Group
92

Appendix 1 Relevant Policy and Guidance
National Policy
Present government planning policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework
(DCLG 2012). Section 12 of the NPPF, entitled Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment
provides guidance for the conservation and investigation of heritage assets and requires local
authorities to take the following into account:
the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to
viable uses consistent with their conservation;
the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic
environment can bring;
the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness; and opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to
the character of a place.
NPPF Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment sets out the principal national
guidance on the importance, management and safeguarding of heritage assets within the planning
process.
The aim of NPPF Section 12 is to ensure that Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning
Authorities, developers and owners of heritage assets adopt a consistent and holistic approach to
their conservation and to reduce complexity in planning policy relating to proposals that affect them.
To summarise, government guidance provides a framework which:
requires applicants to provide proportionate information on the significance on heritage assets
affected by the proposals and an impact assessment of the proposed development on that
significance. This should be in the form of a desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field
evaluation;
takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets
and their setting;
places weight on the conservation of designated heritage assets (which include World Heritage
Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and
Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas);
requires developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets
to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and impact, and to make
this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.
Policy and guidance concerning Listed Buildings is as follows;
Paragraph 132 – When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of
a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more
important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through
alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets
are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial
harm to or loss of a grade II Listed Building…should be exceptional…
Paragraph 134 – Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits
of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
Further guidance on all aspects of the NPPF is provided on the Planning Practice Guidance website
which includes a section entitled ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’.
Camden Local Plan 2017
Policy C1 Health and wellbeing
The Council will improve and promote strong, vibrant and healthy communities through ensuring
a high quality environment with local services to support health, social and cultural wellbeing and
reduce inequalities.
Measures that will help contribute to healthier communities and reduce health inequalities must be
incorporated in a development where appropriate.
The Council will require:
93

a. development to positively contribute to creating high quality, active, safe and accessible places;
and b. proposals for major development schemes to include a Health Impact Assessment (HIA).
We will:
c. contribute towards the health priorities of the Health and Wellbeing Board and partners to help
reduce health inequalities across the borough;
d. support the provision of new or improved health facilities, in line with Camden’s Clinical
Commissioning Group and NHS England requirements; and
e. protect existing health facilities in line with Policy C2 Community facilities.
Policy C2 Community facilities
The Council will work with its partners to ensure that community facilities and services are
developed and modernised to meet the changing needs of our community and reflect new
approaches to the delivery of services.
The Council will:
a. seek planning obligations to secure new and improved community facilities and services to
mitigate the impact of developments. The Council may also fund improvements to community
facilities using receipts from the Community Infrastructure Levy where this is identified on the
Council’s CIL funding list;
b. expect a developer proposing additional floorspace in community use, or a new community
facility, to reach agreement with the Council on its continuing maintenance and other future funding
requirements;
c. ensure that facilities provide access to a service on foot and by sustainable modes of travel;
d. facilitate multi-purpose community facilities and the secure sharing or extended use of facilities
that can be accessed by the wider community, except for facilities occupied by the emergency
services due to their distinct operating needs;
e. support the investment plans of educational, health, scientific and research bodies to expand
and enhance their operations, taking into account the social and economic benefits they generate
for Camden, London and the UK. In assessing proposals, the Council will also balance the impact
proposals may have on residential amenity and transport infrastructure;
f. seek the inclusion of measures which address the needs of community groups and foster
community integration;
g. ensure existing community facilities are retained recognising their benefit to the community,
including protected groups, unless one of the following tests is met:
i. a replacement facility of a similar nature is provided that meets the needs of the local population
or its current, or intended, users; ii. the existing premises are no longer required or viable in their
existing use and there is no alternative community use capable of meeting the needs of the local
area. Where it has been demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction there is no reasonable prospect
of a community use, then our preferred alternative will be the maximum viable amount of affordable
housing;
h. take into account listing or nomination of ‘Assets of Community Value’ as a material planning
consideration and encourage communities to nominate Assets of Community Value.
Policy C3 Cultural and leisure facilities
Protection of cultural and leisure facilities The Council will seek to protect cultural and leisure
facilities and manage the impact of adjoining uses where this is likely to impact their continued
operation.
Where there is a proposal involving the loss of a cultural or leisure facility, it must be demonstrated
to the Council’s satisfaction there is no longer a demand. When assessing such planning
applications, we will take the following into account:
a. whether the premises are able to support alternative cultural and leisure uses which would make
a positive contribution to the range of cultural and leisure facilities in the borough;
b. the size, layout and design of the existing facility;
c. proposals for re-provision elsewhere;
d. the impact of the proposal on the range of cultural and leisure facilities and;
e. the mix of uses in the area.
Exceptionally it may be practicable for a cultural or leisure facility to reprovided on-site through
redevelopment, or elsewhere in the Borough. The Council will take the following into account when
determining the suitability of proposals:
i. the impacts of the re-provision on the existing occupier and users of the facility;
94

ii. changes in the mix of uses arising from the loss of the existing cultural/leisure facility;
iii. the loss of cultural heritage; and
iv. the affordability of the new facility.
If a replacement facility is provided, it should be at the same or better standard than the facility
which is lost and accessible to its existing users.
New cultural and leisure facilities
The Council will seek opportunities for new cultural and leisure facilities in major, mixed use
developments and support the temporary use of vacant buildings for cultural and leisure activities.
We will seek shared-use or extended access for the community in appropriate developments
through developer agreements.
We will expect the siting of new facilities, including the expansion of existing provision, to take into
account its associated impacts. Large-scale facilities should be located where as many people as
possible can enjoy their benefits and make use of public transport to get there. Central London
and town centres will, therefore, be the most appropriate locations. Smaller facilities may, however,
be appropriate anywhere in the Borough providing they do not have an adverse impact on the
surrounding area or the local community.
Policy C5 Safety and security
The Council will aim to make Camden a safer place.
We will:
a. work with our partners including the Camden Community Safety Partnership to tackle crime, fear
of crime and antisocial behaviour;
b. require developments to demonstrate that they have incorporated design principles which
contribute to community safety and security, particularly in wards with relatively high levels of crime,
such as Holborn and Covent Garden, Camden Town with Primrose Hill and Bloomsbury;
c. require appropriate security and community safety measures in buildings, spaces and the
transport system;
d. promote safer streets and public areas;
e. address the cumulative impact of food, drink and entertainment uses, particularly in Camden
Town, Central London and other centres and ensure Camden’s businesses and organisations
providing food, drink and entertainment uses take responsibility for reducing the opportunities for
crime through effective management and design; and
f. promote the development of pedestrian friendly spaces. Where a development has been identified
as being potentially vulnerable to terrorism, the Council will expect counter-terrorism measures to be
incorporated into the design of buildings and associated public areas to increase security.
Policy C6 Access for all
The Council will seek to promote fair access and remove the barriers that prevent everyone from
accessing facilities and opportunities.
We will:
a. expect all buildings and places to meet the highest practicable standards of accessible and
inclusive design so they can be used safely, easily and with dignity by all;
b. expect facilities to be located in the most accessible parts of the borough;
c. expect spaces, routes and facilities between buildings to be designed to be fully accessible;
d. encourage accessible public transport; and
e. secure car parking for disabled people.
The Council will seek to ensure that development meets the principles of lifetime neighbourhoods.
Policy E1 Economic development
The Council will secure a successful and inclusive economy in Camden by creating the conditions
for economic growth and harnessing the benefits for local residents and businesses.
We will:
a. support businesses of all sizes, in particular start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises;
b. maintain a stock of premises that are suitable for a variety of business activities, for firms of
differing sizes, and available on a range of terms and conditions for firms with differing resources;
c. support local enterprise development, employment and training schemes for Camden residents;
d. encourage the concentrations of professional and technical services, creative and cultural
businesses and science growth sectors in the borough;
e. support the development of Camden’s health and education sectors and promote the
95

development of the Knowledge Quarter around Euston and King’s Cross while ensuring that any
new facilities meet the other strategic objectives of this Local Plan;
f. direct new office development to the growth areas, Central London, and the town centres in order
to meet the forecast demand of 695,000sqm of office floorspace between 2014 and 2031;
g. support Camden’s industries by:
i. safeguarding existing employment sites and premises in the borough that meet the needs of
industry and other employers;
ii. supporting proposals for the intensification of employment sites and premises where these
provide additional employment and other benefits in line with Policy E2 Employment premises and
sites;
iii. safeguarding the Kentish Town Industry Area;
iv. promoting and protecting the jewellery industry in Hatton Garden;
h. expect the provision of high speed digital infrastructure in all employment developments; and
i. recognise the importance of other employment generating uses, including retail, education, health,
markets, leisure and tourism.
Policy A2 Open space
The Council will protect, enhance and improve access to Camden’s parks, open spaces and other
green infrastructure.
Protection of open spaces
In order to protect the Council’s open spaces, we will:
a. protect all designated public and private open spaces as shown on the Policies Map and in the
accompanying schedule unless equivalent or better provision of open space in terms of quality and
quantity is provided within the local catchment area;
b. safeguard open space on housing estates while allowing flexibility for the re-configuration of land
uses. When assessing development proposals we will take the following into account:
i. the effect of the proposed scheme on the size, siting and form of existing open space and the
functions it performs;
ii. whether the open space is replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and
quality; and
iii. whether the public value of retaining the open space is outweighed by the benefits of the
development for existing estate residents and the wider community, such as improvements to the
quality and access of the open space.
c. resist development which would be detrimental to the setting of designated open spaces;
d. exceptionally, and where it meets a demonstrable need, support smallscale development which is
associated with the use of the land as open space and contributes to its use and enjoyment by the
public;
e. protect non-designated spaces with nature conservation, townscape and amenity value, including
gardens, where possible;
f. conserve and enhance the heritage value of designated open spaces and other elements of open
space which make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas
or to the setting of heritage assets;
g. give strong protection to maintaining the openness and character of Metropolitan Open Land
(MOL);
h. promote and encourage greater community participation in the management of open space and
support communities seeking the designation of Local Green Spaces through the neighbourhood
planning process;
i. consider development for alternative sports and recreation provision, where the needs outweigh
the loss and where this is supported by an up-to-date needs assessment;
j. preserve and enhance Hampstead Heath through working with partners and by taking into
account the impact on the Heath when considering relevant planning applications, including any
impacts on views to and from the Heath; and
k. work with partners to preserve and enhance the Regent’s Canal, including its setting, and balance
the differing demands on the Canal and its towpath.
New and enhanced open space
To secure new and enhanced open space and ensure that development does not put unacceptable
pressure on the Borough’s network of open spaces, theCouncil will:
l. seek developer contributions for open space enhancements using Section 106 agreements and
the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Council will secure planning obligations to address
the additional impact of proposed schemes on public open space taking into account the scale of
the proposal, the number of future occupants and the land uses involved;
m. apply a standard of 9 sqm per occupant for residential schemes and 0.74 sqm for commercial
96

and higher education developments while taking into account any funding for open spaces through
the Community Infrastructure Levy;
n. give priority to securing new public open space on-site, with provision off-site near to the
development only considered acceptable where provision on-site is not achievable. If there is
no realistic means of direct provision, the Council may accept a financial contribution in lieu of
provision;
o. ensure developments seek opportunities for providing private amenity space;
p. give priority to play facilities and the provision of amenity space which meet residents’ needs
where a development creates a need for different types of open space;
q. seek opportunities to enhance links between open spaces recognizing the multiple benefits this
may bring;
r. tackle deficiencies to open space through enhancement measures; and
s. seek temporary provision of open space where opportunities arise.
Policy A3 Biodiversity
The Council will protect and enhance sites of nature conservation and biodiversity. We will:
a. designate and protect nature conservation sites and safeguard protected and priority habitats and
species;
b. grant permission for development unless it would directly or indirectly result in the loss or harm to
a designated nature conservation site or adversely affect the status or population of priority habitats
and species;
c. seek the protection of other features with nature conservation value, including gardens, wherever
possible;
d. assess developments against their ability to realise benefits for biodiversity through the
layout, design and materials used in the built structure and landscaping elements of a proposed
development, proportionate to the scale of development proposed;
e. secure improvements to green corridors, particularly where a development scheme is adjacent to
an existing corridor;
f. seek to improve opportunities to experience nature, in particular where such opportunities are
lacking;
g. require the demolition and construction phase of development, including the movement of works
vehicles, to be planned to avoid disturbance to habitats and species and ecologically sensitive
areas, and the spread of invasive species;
h. secure management plans, where appropriate, to ensure that nature conservation objectives are
met; and
i. work with The Royal Parks, The City of London Corporation, the London Wildlife Trust, friends of
park groups and local nature conservation groups to protect and improve open spaces and nature
conservation in Camden.
Trees and vegetation
The Council will protect, and seek to secure additional, trees and vegetation.
We will:
j. resist the loss of trees and vegetation of significant amenity, historic, cultural or ecological value
including proposals which may threaten the continued wellbeing of such trees and vegetation;
k. require trees and vegetation which are to be retained to be satisfactorily protected during the
demolition and construction phase of development in line with BS5837:2012 ‘Trees in relation to
Design, Demolition and Construction’ and positively integrated as part of the site layout;
l. expect replacement trees or vegetation to be provided where the loss of significant trees or
vegetation or harm to the wellbeing of these trees and vegetation has been justified in the context of
the proposed development;
m. expect developments to incorporate additional trees and vegetation wherever possible.
Policy D2 Heritage
The Council will preserve and, where appropriate, enhance Camden’s rich and diverse heritage
assets and their settings, including conservation areas, listed buildings, archaeological remains,
scheduled ancient monuments and historic parks and gardens and locally listed heritage assets.
Designated heritage assets
Designed heritage assets include conservation areas and listed buildings. The Council will not
permit the loss of or substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, including conservation areas
and Listed Buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to
achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
97

a. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;
b. no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate
marketing that will enable its conservation;
c. conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not
possible; and
d. the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
The Council will not permit development that results in harm that is less than substantial to the
significance of a designated heritage asset unless the public benefits of the proposal convincingly
outweigh that harm.
Conservation areas
Conservation areas are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction
with the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. In order to maintain the character
of Camden’s conservation areas, the Council will take account of conservation area statements,
appraisals and management strategies when assessing applications within conservation areas.
The Council will:
e. require that development within conservation areas preserves or, where possible, enhances the
character or appearance of the area;
f. resist the total or substantial demolition of an unlisted building that makes a positive contribution to
the character or appearance of a conservation area;
g. resist development outside of a conservation area that causes harm to the character or
appearance of that conservation area; and
h. preserve trees and garden spaces which contribute to the character and appearance of a
conservation area or which provide a setting for Camden’s architectural heritage.
Listed Buildings
Listed buildings are designated heritage assets and this section should be read in conjunction with
the section above headed ‘designated heritage assets’. To preserve or enhance the borough’s listed
buildings, the Council will:
i. resist the total or substantial demolition of a listed building;
j. resist proposals for a change of use or alterations and extensions to a listed building where this
would cause harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the building; and
k. resist development that would cause harm to significance of a listed building through an effect on
its setting.
Archaeology
The Council will protect remains of archaeological importance by ensuring acceptable measures
are taken proportionate to the significance of the heritage asset to preserve them and their setting,
including physical preservation, where appropriate.
Other heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets
The Council will seek to protect other heritage assets including nondesignated heritage assets
(including those on and off the local list),
Registered Parks and Gardens and London Squares.
The effect of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset will be weighed
against the public benefits of the proposal, balancing the scale of any harm or loss and the
significance of the heritage asset.
Policy CC2 Adapting to climate change
The Council will require development to be resilient to climate change. All development should
adopt appropriate climate change adaptation measures such as:
a. the protection of existing green spaces and promoting new appropriate green infrastructure;
b. not increasing, and wherever possible reducing, surface water runoff through increasing
permeable surfaces and use of Sustainable Drainage Systems;
c. incorporating bio-diverse roofs, combination green and blue roofs and green walls where
appropriate; and
d. measures to reduce the impact of urban and dwelling overheating, including application of the
cooling hierarchy.
Any development involving 5 or more residential units or 500 sqm or more of any additional
floorspace is required to demonstrate the above in a Sustainability Statement.
Sustainable design and construction measures
98

The Council will promote and measure sustainable design and construction by:
e. ensuring development schemes demonstrate how adaptation measures and sustainable
development principles have been incorporated into the design and proposed implementation;
f. encourage new build residential development to use the Home Quality Mark and Passivhaus
design standards;
g. encouraging conversions and extensions of 500 sqm of residential floorspace or above or five or
more dwellings to achieve “excellent” in BREEAM domestic refurbishment; and
h. expecting non-domestic developments of 500 sqm of floorspace or above to achieve “excellent”
in BREEAM assessments and encouraging zero carbon in new development from 2019.
99

Appendix 2 Listing Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic
Interest
5. Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) imposes a
duty on the Secretary of State to compile or approve a list or lists of buildings of special architectural
or historic interest as a guide to the planning authorities when carrying out their planning functions.
The planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public’s
interest. The designation of historic sites enables the planning system to protect them, through
the complementary systems of listed building consent and conservation area control, coupled with
controls over scheduled monument consent.
6. The statutory criteria for listing are the special architectural or historic interest of a building. Many
buildings are interesting architecturally or historically, but, in order to be listed, a building must have
“special” interest.
7. Buildings on the list are graded to reflect their relative architectural and historic interest. Buildings
of historic interest may justify a higher grading than would otherwise be appropriate.
• Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest;
• Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;
• Grade II buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.
8. In addition to the statutory criteria and the general principles contained in this guidance, Selection
Guides for different building types are published on English Heritage’s website. The Selection
Guides provide detailed technical information about each building type, and are linked to the
general principles contained in this guidance. They demonstrate what features are considered
significant and likely to make a building of special architectural or historic interest when assessing
buildings of a particular type from different periods, regions, or styles. It is recognised that some
buildings are unique or will fall into more than one building type. Where a building is a composite of
different types, then any relevant criteria from the Selection Guides applies. The general principles
outlined below take precedence over the Selection Guides, which are published as supplementary
information. The Guides are updated and revised when needed to reflect the growing understanding
of the significance of particular types of building through further research.
Statutory Criteria
9. The Secretary of State uses the following criteria when assessing whether a building is of special
interest and therefore should be added to the statutory list:
• Architectural Interest. To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in
its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally
important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying
technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms;
• Historic Interest. To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the
nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with
nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric
of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by listing.
10. When making a listing decision, the Secretary of State may take into account the extent to which
the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it
forms part. This is generally known as group value. The Secretary of State will take this into account
particularly where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example
of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or model villages) or where there is a historical functional
relationship between a group of buildings. If a building is designated because of its group value,
protection applies to the whole of the property, not just the exterior.
11. When considering whether a building is of special architectural or historic interest the Secretary
of State may take into account the desirability of preserving, on the grounds of its architectural or
historic interest, any feature of the building containing a man-made object or structure fixed to the
building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building. The desirability
of preserving such a feature is a factor which would increase the likelihood of the building being
listed. However, in the absence of any other aspects of special architectural or historic interest, such
features will justify the listing of the building only if they are of themselves of sufficient interest to
render the building of special interest. The provision can be used for a variety of features; examples
could include a finely panelled sixteenth century room, a fireplace and over-mantel that has been
100

introduced from another building, or an elaborate plaster ceiling. This provision cannot be used to
preserve in situ anything that is not a fixture, such as furniture or paintings.
General Principles
12. Age and rarity. The older a building is, and the fewer the surviving examples of its kind, the more
likely it is to have special interest. The following chronology is meant as a guide to assessment; the
dates are indications of likely periods of interest and are not absolute. The relevance of age and
rarity will vary according to the particular type of building because for some types, dates other than
those outlined below are of significance. However, the general principles used are that:
• before 1700, all buildings that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are listed;
• from 1700 to 1840, most buildings are listed;
• after 1840, because of the greatly increased number of buildings erected and the much larger
numbers that have survived, progressively greater selection is necessary;
• particularly careful selection is required for buildings from the period after 1945;
• buildings of less than 30 years old are normally listed only if they are of outstanding quality and
under threat.
13. Aesthetic merits. The appearance of a building – both its intrinsic architectural merit and any
group value – is a key consideration in judging listing proposals, but the special interest of a
building will not always be reflected in obvious external visual quality. Buildings that are important
for reasons of technological innovation, or as illustrating particular aspects of social or economic
history, may have little external visual quality.
14. Selectivity. Where a building qualifies for listing primarily on the strength of its special
architectural interest, the fact that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is not likely
to be a major consideration. However, a building may be listed primarily because it represents a
particular historical type in order to ensure that examples of such a type are preserved. Listing
in these circumstances is largely a comparative exercise and needs to be selective where a
substantial number of buildings of a similar type and quality survive. In such cases, the Secretary of
State’s policy is to list only the most representative or most significant examples of the type.
15. National interest. The emphasis in these criteria is to establish consistency of selection to
ensure that not only are all buildings of strong intrinsic architectural interest included on the list, but
also the most significant or distinctive regional buildings that together make a major contribution to
the national historic stock. For instance, the best examples of local vernacular buildings will normally
be listed because together they illustrate the importance of distinctive local and regional traditions.
Similarly, for example, some buildings will be listed because they represent a nationally important
but localised industry, such as shoemaking in Northamptonshire or cotton production in Lancashire.
16. State of repair. The state of repair of a building is not a relevant consideration when deciding
whether a building meets the test of special interest. The Secretary of State will list a building which
has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair.

Appendix 3 Workshop Posters
Community and Neighbourhood at Highgate
Public meeting for Conservation and community project at Highgate
19:30-21:00 - 6th of June 2019 - The Garden Room
Dear residents,
We would like to invite you to tell us your views and provide input for a residentled
project, which will produce guidance for the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area,
covering Highgate. Come and tell us about what matters to you as residents and how
you can get the most out of living here. Picking up the focus on community in the
Dartmouth Park neighbourhood plan, we are looking to fill in the gaps in Camden’s
Conservation Area Guidance to ensure the best for Highgate as a place and community.
The evening will include;
• A short presentation about the project and history of Highgate
• An open discussion about how to better care for the estate and your residents.
• How we might achieve this through the conservation area and neighbourhood plan
and whether an application for heritage listing might help secure your interests.
Any questions? contact tom.davies@aho.no
102

Update on Community & Neighbourhood Project at Highgate New Town (Whittington
Estate)
Dear Residents, after three workshops organised through the WERA residents working group setup
in May 2019, here is an update on the resident-led guidance we have developed for Camden
to add to the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area, which your homes lies within. Firstly, thank you
very much to those that have taken part for helping to develop something that will help to ensure
that better care is taken of Highgate New Town (The Whittington Estate).
This is your opportunity to review the outcome of the work the WERA and residents’ working
group have been doing on behalf of residents as a whole at Highgate New Town.
The WERA working group also decided to go for heritage Listing which will support the protection
of the Conservation Area, to reflect the quality of Highgate as a place to live and its importance
as part of London’s history. This has been developed from a community perspective to support
residents in enjoying Highgate as a place to live and to help ensure that conservation guidance
(see opposite) is carried out in practice.
Please have a read through the conservation guidance we are going to submit to Camden
(opposite) and email any comments or suggestions to tom.davies@aho.no
(who is coordinating for the WERA working group)
Community and Neighbourhood at Highgate
Public meeting for Conservation and community project at Highgate
19:30-21:00 - 6th of June 2019 - The Garden Room
Dear residents,
We would like to invite you to tell us your views and provide input for a residentled
project, which will produce guidance for the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area,
covering Highgate. Come and tell us about what matters to you as residents and how
you can get the most out of living here. Picking up the focus on community in the
Dartmouth Park neighbourhood plan, we are looking to fill in the gaps in Camden’s
Conservation Area Guidance to ensure the best for Highgate as a place and community.
The evening will include;
• A short presentation about the project and history of Highgate
• An open discussion about how to better care for the estate and your residents.
• How we might achieve this through the conservation area and neighbourhood plan
and whether an application for heritage listing might help secure your interests.
Any questions? contact tom.davies@aho.no
103

Peter Tábori’s Highgate New Town: Phase 1 (1967-78), one of the exemplary projects
built at Camden from the late ‘60s (Alexandra Road, Maiden Lane etc.), is a singular
achievement in the ‘urban-renewal’ and community-focus of the late 1960s, which blends
continuity and the exoticism of Italian hill-towns to create vibrant place and community.
This study tells the story of its development from origins in its challenging design to the
heritage of its community today, spanning a wealth of rich connections from Richard and Su
Rogers, Neave Brown, Ernö Goldfinger and the Etruscan God Tinia to Jane Jacobs and the
megastructures of Paul Rudolph on the other side of the Atlantic.
Reflecting the gathering recognition of Tábori’s achievement seen in its inclusion in a 2019
RIBA-funded project identifying nine exemplar housing schemes for future housing models,
this study presents community-led Conservation Area guidance and an application for
Grade II* Listing to recognise and support Highgate New Town: Phase 1. As a residentled
initiative, this story is told by the residents, historians and other sources, making a
compelling case for care and support on the basis of its exceptional heritage values, the
importance of its vital and unusual community spaces for its community and strong resident
support from within that community.
The authors (Tom Davies and the WERA Working-Group) would like to thank; Professor
Mark Swenarton (Cooks Camden: the making of Modern Housing) who contributed expert
knowledge and support throughout and Fabian Watkinson, who kick-started the project and
contributed boundless enthusiastism and invaluable assistance, as well as Even Smith-
Wergeland (AHO, Oslo), Luis Diaz (University of Brighton) and David Roberts (The Bartlett,
UCL), for their guidance and steadfast support. Thanks also to Jonathon Makepeace at
RIBA for the permission to use some of Tim Crocker and Martin Charles’ fantastic images
and illustrator Stephanie Bower for lending her image of Civita di Bagnoregio.
Maridalsveien 29 0175 Oslo dd +(0047) 41258875 m +44 (0)7815 301 399 e tom.davies@aho.no