Dear R Ganeshmoorthy

 

Thank you for your pre-application inquiry regarding the grade II* listed buildings situated at Nos 29-30 Fitzroy Square, within the Fitzroy Square Conservation Area, which date from the 1830s period.  These properties were merged into one office building during the 20^th century, and at that time underwent a number of alterations including the reconfiguration of the floor plans.  The rear of each property was also extended to provide full site coverage at upper and ground floor levels.  The front façade was retained in close to its original form, so as to present a uniform appearance to Fitzroy Square. 

 

I can confirm that the planned works comprising internal alterations to include the enlargement of the existing reception area, the provision of a disabled WC and alterations to partitions in other areas of the building will require a formal application to the Council for listed building consent.  Since the building is listed grade II*, the Council will have to consult English Heritage on any application.

 

I have the following comments to make regarding your proposals.  Please note that I am using the English Heritage guidance on Terraced Houses in London 1660-1860 as a basis for my assessment, but I have taken into consideration the fact that the buildings have been much altered.  However, it should be noted that where original structural walls or equivalent modern versions are in situ, especially on the principal floors (the ground and first floors), these elements should be retained in place, as outlined below.

 

Ground floor

 

It is not acceptable to remove the section of party wall which currently divides the two front rooms of the property and would facilitate the expansion of the existing reception space.  This is because this wall marks the fact that the property was originally two separate townhouses, may well have structural properties, and is visible from the street as a return of the front elevation.  It is important that this wall remains in position as it prevents an impression of facadism in the terrace as seen from the square.

 

It is also unacceptable to remove the partition between the existing entrance corridor and the reception area as it also defines part of the former floor plan of the townhouse and retains something of the building’s original cellular character.  It is also visible from the street and so its presence avoids an open-plan situation which is unacceptable at ground floor level in the front section of the building.

 

It is acceptable in principle to relocate the entrance door to the front office adjacent to the reception area (subject to detailed design), but this may not be necessary if the size of this room is not going to be reduced (in accordance with the comments made above).

 

The addition of a disabled WC is acceptable since it is to be situated in the middle-rear section of the building which has already been much altered.  However, services should be incorporated into the building in as discreet a manner as possible, routed away from the front of the building, and so that where historic fabric exists it is not harmed, wherever possible using existing service runs.

 

It is acceptable to introduce a chamfered corner to the rear office room adjacent to the entrance hall.

 

First floor

 

The proposed changes to the access doors, introducing double doors, is acceptable in principle, subject to detailed design of the new doors. 

 

The removal of the spinal corridor is acceptable since it is a non-original feature out-of-keeping with the original floor plan.

 

The reconfiguration of the three rear offices to create two larger offices divided by a folding partition is acceptable, since none of the existing spaces are original.  It is assumed that the projection proposed for removal from the party wall with No 28 Fitzroy Square is not original fabric such as a chimney breast, as the presumption would be to retain this feature if it is of historic value.

 

It is acceptable to install a second kitchen in the middle of the floor as no historic fabric or plan form will be affected.  However, it is necessary for all servicing to be sensitively incorporated and inserted into the building as for the ground floor WC (above).

 

It is similarly acceptable to create an internal store room in an area where no historic plan form survives.

 

The removal of the plant room is acceptable provided that the space is made good to match adjacent work and any apertures in the external walls are sensitively filled in.

 

Second floor

 

As with the rear section of the first floor, the reconfiguration of the existing office room layout, in this case allowing for a larger central open space, is acceptable in principle. 

 

There are reservations regarding the positioning of a two dividing walls at the front of the floor, which ‘coincide’ with two front windows and so will be visible from the square.  The partition adjacent to the former party wall between the two former townhouses should be realigned so as to follow its line in plan form.  The second partition, adjacent to one of the northernmost windows, should be staggered further back from the front façade by a sufficient distance so as not to be visible from the square.

 

Third floor

 

The reconfiguration of partitions forming office spaces is also acceptable at third floor level.

 

As for the second floor, there are reservations relating to a partitions adjacent to windows in the front facade which also need to be staggered further back from the front façade by a sufficient distance so as not to ‘coincide’ with the window and be visible from the square.

 

The rear wall of the northernmost front office should be repositioned so that it aligns with the nib of the former spinal wall of the townhouse.  The existing arrangement with a small gap between the two walls creates an awkward gap.

 

Basement

 

The conversion and opening up of the existing rear store room and adjacent office into one larger office space is acceptable since it affects an area of secondary importance in the listed building which would appear to be a later extension.

 

I trust this information is of assistance.  If you have any questions on any of the above points or relating to a future listed building consent application, please do not hesitate to contact me on my direct line number or by e-mail.

 

Please note that this is an officer’s opinion and does not prejudice any future decision made by the Council with regards to this matter.