ELMCROFT DRIVE, CHESSINGTON

ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY FOR DESIGNATION AS

LOCAL AREA OF SPECIAL CHARACTER

Report for Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames by

Michael Copeman MSc BA IHBC

February 2019

2

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Commission ............................................................................................................................... 4

2 HISTORY .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Development .............................................................................................................................. 5

3 DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Architecture ................................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 Streetscape ................................................................................................................................ 14

4 ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Heritage significance ............................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Designation criteria and comparison with other LASCs .................................................. 16 4.3 Conclusion and recommendation ......................................................................................... 17

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site location plan showing Elmcroft Drive and Elmcroft Close © Crown Copyright and database right 2019. Ordnance Survey 100019285 ................................................................................. 3 Figure 2: OS 1911showing site of Haycroft estate(RBK) ..................................................................... 5 Figure 3: OS 1932 showing Haycroft Estate (RBK) .............................................................................. 6 Figure 4: Advertisements for Thorogood's developments in Kingston and Surbiton (RBK) ........ 7 Figure 5: OS 1955 showing Haycroft Estate, with Ace Parade to NE (RBK) .................................. 8 Figure 6: House type N1; design 1933 (RBK) ...................................................................................... 10 Figure 7: 45-47 Elmcroft Drive ............................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: 26 Elmcroft Drive (left) and 24 Elmcroft Drive (right) ..................................................... 11 Figure 9: House type N2, design 1933 (RBK) ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 10: 25-27 Elmcroft Drive ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 11: 53 Elmcroft Avenue ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 12: 30 Elmcroft Drive: clinker slag wall, front garden and verge .......................................... 14

3

Figure 1: Site location plan showing Elmcroft Drive and Elmcroft Close © Crown Copyright and database right 2019. Ordnance Survey 100019285

4

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 I, Michael Copeman, was instructed by emails dated 29 and 30 November 2018, by the Urban Design Manager (Regeneration and Strategic Housing) of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames to prepare an initial report on the suitability of Elmcroft Road, Chessington and certain other areas of the borough for designation as a Local Area of Special Character (LASC).

1.1.2 I submitted a preliminary report dated 10 January 2019, recommending that the Elmcroft Road area could potentially be eligible for designation as LASC, subject to the outcome of further research to inform a fully detailed report. I did not recommend that any other areas should be taken forward for further research or designation.

1.1.3 Research was undertaken at the Council’s Local Studies Room, in the Councils planning and building control records and in published sources. It also drew on information provided by local residents. A site visit was made on 9 January 2019.

1.1.4 The author is grateful for the assistance of the following: Ms Helen Swainger (Borough Archivist) and colleagues, Mr Michael Hoare, Mr Gareth Grant (AE Thorogood Builders).

5

2 HISTORY

1.2 Development

Figure 2: OS 1911showing site of Haycroft estate (RBK)

2.1.1 Until the late 19th century, the Tolworth-Hook-Chessington area was largely rural. Hook was a small village along the main road that ran south from Kingston to Leatherhead (see fig. 2). By the early 20th century, the area’s proximity to London, Kingston and Victorian residential suburbs such as Surbiton, were reflected a scattering of suburban developments. These included small terraces, substantial houses in their own grounds and associated industries such as the Tolworth Brick and Tile works.

2.1.2 Kingston By-Pass, built from in 1927, ‘…crossed the Hook Road at Southborough, just north of Haycroft House, where a roundabout was constructed in 1929…’.1 The fast new motor road to London, stimulated residential development in the neighbourhood, consisting of extensive estates of very similar, mainly semi-detached suburban houses of the ubiquitous inter-war type. In Chessington and Hook, the houses tended to be relatively small. They were offered for sale at modest prices, with mortgages often initially subsidised by the developer, to the growing numbers of middle-class commuters. The area was popular with public servants such as police officers and teachers.

1 Bone, Marion C. The Story of Hook in Kingston PCC of St Paul Hook, [Hook] 1989:81

6

Figure 3: OS 1932 showing Haycroft Estate (RBK)

2.1.3 The first of the new developments in Hook was Somerset Avenue (1930), to the west of St Paul’s Church part of 1930, characteristically replacing an existing large house, called ‘Oaklands’; the developer was Leslie Ransom. Other local developers quickly followed his lead, among the most prolific of whom was Ebenezer Thorogood of Surbiton whose firm, Thorogood Bros. and Sons, was responsible for extensive areas of suburban housing in the Kingston area between the 1920s and the mid-1960s.

2.1.4 By late 1932 Thorogood had acquired a large house named Haycroft, Hook Road, and its grounds. The house was built c1860 for a John Clayton (d.1866).2 The 1932 OS map (fig. 3) shows that the new by-pass ran immediately to the north of the house. A survey plan in the Borough Archives showing Haycroft house but with Elmcroft Drive marked alongside it, is dated October 1932.

2.1.5 A plan showing the layout of Elmcroft Drive had been prepared by November 1932 has the names of buyers or tenants beside almost all the properties, indicating that the development was sold ‘off-plan’. Most of the houses have prices shown that range from £850 to £1050.3 A handful are marked ‘let’. The prices are in the mid-range- somewhat less than the Surbiton Lodge estate (close to the river, west of the town centre) and a little more than house in the nearby Tolworth Park Estate (see fig. 4).

2 Ibid. p.35 3 Kingston History Centre ref. KX69/4

7

Figure 4: Advertisements for Thorogood's developments in Kingston and Surbiton (RBK ref. KX69/19)

2.1.6 The remainder of the Haycroft site- Elmcroft Close, 335-365 Hook Rise (facing the by-pass), 201-203 Hook Road and Ace Parade, a block of shops on the north-west part of the site were laid out by Thorogoods over the following two years (see fig. 5). The latter originally included well-known retailers such as Boots and Sainsburys.4

2.1.7 A small number of building permits for the estate survive in the Building Control records of Kingston Council; most have been lost. However, the index indicates that permission for most of the houses was sought in 1933-5 and most were completed within a year.5 The development seems to have been built in groups of houses, rather than from one end of the street to the other, with various house designs concurrently, presumably to ensure that there was choice of house types for sale.

4 Ibid. p.88 5 https://maps.kingston.gov.uk/propertyServices/Building/Search

8

Figure 5: OS 1955 showing Haycroft Estate, with Ace Parade to NE (RBK)

2.1.8 As noted, the Kingston by-pass was the commercial raison d’etre for the development and some of the houses were built with car garages; many others had them added before 1939. Otherwise the development survives substantially as it was built, with relatively little infill. A number of houses have had extensions, predominantly to their garden elevations. No.71 Elmcroft Drive has recently been demolished and is currently being rebuilt. Nos. 201-3 Hook Road were replaced with small blocks of flat (The Pines) c2002.

9

3 DESCRIPTION

3.1 Architecture

3.1.1 Thorogood’s development employed four basic house designs, with variations. The style is predominantly, but not exclusively, a typically suburban neo-vernacular, distantly derived from the late 19th- and early 20th century Arts and Crafts style. Most of the houses are detached or semi-detached pairs, but there are three bungalows on the north side of the west end of the street and one to the east end. Elmcroft Close is a small side street to the north of the Drive, comprising a small ‘circus’ of six bungalows. Nos. 335-365 Hook Rise are a mix of detached and semi-detached houses similar to those in Elmcroft Drive. Ace Parade is a ‘moderne’ style commercial block, that has no architectural affinity with the houses.

3.1.2 A collection of Thorogoods’ plans for the Haycroft Estate is held in the Kingston Borough Archives.6 The designs are labelled by house-type and dated 1933. None has the name of an architect or designer other than ‘Thorogood Bros. & Sons. However, an architectural designer named Frank H Chown produced the plans for Thorogoods’ Tolworth Park Estate houses c1929.7 Chown was an architectural designer (he does not seem to have been a registered architect) and developer who worked mainly in the East Horsley area. The Haycroft designs especially in their elevations, have a good deal in common with Chown’s work; for example: the ‘Tudor’ details at Station Parade and Bishopsmead Parade, and the wide dormers at ‘Woodhatch’, all of the early 1930s in East Horsley. Therefore, it seems quite probable that Chown had provided Thorogoods with some basic designs- or at least elevations- that they worked up into individual house plans.

3.1.3 No single design predominates, but the majority of houses are semi-detached. There is a surprisingly large degree of variation within the types. Type N1 (figs. 6, 7), was used longest runs of similar houses (nos. 15-21 and 29-51) having with paired central gables with applied timber framing over front doors with ‘Tudor’ brick arches. This design was used for the duration of the development: no.15 was approved and completed in 1933; no. 51 was approved in 1933 and completed in 1934 and no. 29 was approved in 1934 and completed in 1935. There are several similar pairs in Hook Rise. Nos 10-16 Elmcroft Drive (1933-4) are a variation on this design with the porch under a round brick arch .

6 Kingston History Centre ref. KX69/4 7 Kingston History Centre ref. KX69/19

10

Figure 6: House type N1; design 1933 (RBK ref. KX69/4)

Figure 7: 45-47 Elmcroft Drive

11

3.1.4 The visual elements of this design (the gable with applied timbering and the ‘Tudor’ arch over the front door) were adapted for detached houses, where the internal plan was reversed, with a big square bay window beneath the gable and the brick-arched porch to the other bay (fig. 8). A single storey side garage was added to most of these houses before 1939. A similar plan form was used for a second detached type, which included an integral garage with a large dormers to the roof above (e.g. no. 28, 1934-5), and one pair, nos. 44-46 (1935-6). A further variation, of which there are detached (no. 20, 1936-7) and semi-detached (nos. 32-34, 1932-38) examples, has an open timber porch under the gable

Figure 8: 26 Elmcroft Drive (left) and 24 Elmcroft Drive (right)

3.1.5 The other semi-detached type (N2), unlike most of the houses in the development, has few traditional or neo-vernacular details (nos. 5-7, 5-15 and 25-27). From the front, they appear to be of a single storey with large dormers in a mansard-roofed attic that over-hangs the ground floor to the front, although the rear elevations are of two conventional stories. Nos. 5-7 have ground floor bay windows, but at 5-15 and 25-27 the overhanging roofs form verandahs supported on brick piers with tile caps (see figs. 8, 9).

12

Figure 9: House type N2, design 1933 (RBK ref. KX69/4)

Figure 10: 25-27 Elmcroft Drive

13

3.1.6 No. 53 Elmcroft Drive is a one-off design (fig. 11). It was one of the first group of houses to be approved (in August 1933), and was completed the following November. It is smaller than the other detached houses with a tile-hung front gable in the ‘Wealden’ style, above the entrance porch, details that were not repeated. However, features such as the ‘Tudor’ style brick arch over the door and the half-hipped main roof, may be seen throughout the development.

Figure 11: 53 Elmcroft Avenue

3.1.7 Of the other detached houses nos. 59-67 (1934-5) are a group of similar but not identical designs. No. 61 has a hipped roof in place of the usual gable, with minor variations; 63 and 65 have half-hips, and 59, 61, 63 and 67 have render in place of the usual applied timbers. (This group has been somewhat more altered than other houses in the street.) Nos. 339-341 Hook Rise are a pair with similar features.

3.1.8 The variety of house types, with differing bay widths and massing, adds to the overall character of the group. The roofscape is enhanced by the survival of what appear to be the original machine-made red clay tiles to almost all of the houses.

3.1.9 The bungalows include elements of the house designs such as applied timbers to the gables, but their design is generally plainer. They lack the distinctive design and decorative details found in the houses and are unexceptional for their date.

3.1.10 Many houses have had minor additions, but apart from the garages (as noted, generally added at the time of construction or before 1939), these are mostly to the

14

rear and not visible from the public realm. Almost all of the houses now have uPVC replacement windows in place of what were presumably timber casements. Many of the integral garages have been incorporated into the houses. However, these changes have not significantly undermined the original character or appearance of the development.

3.2 Streetscape

3.2.1 The variety of house designs, curved street layout and relatively low density (c18 dwellings per hectare) allows for some variation in the space between the buildings, which is slightly more generous than in many comparable, more regimented, local developments of this date. The streetscape includes modest attempts to go beyond a purely utilitarian public realm, with ornamental street trees and central ‘island’ flower beds (although these are somewhat neglected) at the junction with Elmcroft Close and planted verges between the footways and road. Most of the trees appear to have been replaced but a few are mature and may date to the 1930s, such as that on the eastern of the two planted ‘islands’.

Figure 12: 30 Elmcroft Drive: clinker slag wall, front garden and verge

3.2.2 Most houses have at least some planting to their street frontages and many have very well-planted front gardens, so the street scene appears generally green. Although many of the front gardens have hard standing for cars parking, plenty of the original clinker slag boundary walls survive. They play an important role in preserving the character of the streetscape by ensuring that the front gardens retain

15

a sense of enclosure. These are typical feature of this date which has disappeared with the industry of which they are a by-product.

3.2.3 Overall, the layout of the street combines with the architectural quality and variety of the houses to create a coherent group and an attractive townscape.

16

4 ASSESSMENT

4.1 Heritage significance

4.1.1 The houses in Elmcroft Drive are well-detailed for their size, type and date, especially compared with other nearby developments of the same period, such as Kelvin Grove or Somerset Avenue, which are notably plainer. Details such as the ‘Tudor’ brick arches and high quality timber front doors are worthy of note and more usually found in much larger and more expensive houses of this date. The pairs with mansard roofs are of interest for their relatively unusual design, with details such as the tiled caps that are closer to the Arts and Crafts ideal of the ‘honest’ use of materials than the other, more traditional houses. They are reminiscent of contemporary houses in France and Belgium, and of post-war British housing.

4.1.2 The architecture of the development is conventional, and typical of mass-built speculative suburban housing of the inter-war period. Its intrinsic architectural quality should not be overstated. However, Elmcroft Drive as a whole is set apart by the intentional variety of its related designs. By comparison, almost all of the other suburban developments in Kingston, Surbiton and Hook at this date consisted of a single repeated house design. The Haycroft estate was marketed at a slightly higher price than most of the nearby developments and its distinctive architectural character was the visible expression of this. Details such as decorative brickwork and joinery were evidently intended to evoke the character of older and more affluent suburbs, where each house is unique and the neo-vernacular style is drawn from authentic, local, historic precedents. The result is a visually rich townscape; and perhaps because of this, a sense of pride in the environment seems to be shared by the residents, so that that the area has preserved its original character to an unusual degree.

4.1.3 The bungalows in Elmcroft Close are not of special interest. The houses on Hook Rise are architecturally similar to those of Elmcroft Drive; their setting is dominated by paved car-parking, and the streetscape has been degraded by main road.

4.1.4 In summary Elmcroft Drive has heritage significance as a good, relatively unaltered, example of an interwar speculative housing development, with an architectural quality and variety, and group value as a townscape that sets it above others of its type and date in this area. The other parts of the Haycroft estate do not have the same qualities.

4.2 Designation criteria and comparison with other LASCs

4.2.1 Revised criteria for designation of Local Areas of Special Character were adopted by the Council in 2018, as follows: a. The area must be of heritage significance; and b. must meet one or more of thefollowing three criteria:

17

i. The architecture in the area must be of a high quality, distinctive and wellpreserved and may reflect the collective value of groups of historic buildings withconsistent architectural form, style, features, detailing or materials; the area mayinclude groups of high quality, distinctive and well-preserved architectures built asan ensemble over a short period of time.ii. The townscape of the area must be of a high quality, distinctive and well- preserved. The historic townscape and/or the urban form of the area may haveorganically developed over the centuries or may have been planned by design in oneor more stages.iii. The landscape of the area must be of a high quality, distinctive and well- preserved. The composition, the natural and/or built features of the historiclandscape may have organically developed over the centuries or may have beenplanned by design in one or more stages.

4.2.2 Several other LASC’s in the borough comprise 20th-century inter-war suburban residential developments. The Haycroft estate is architecturally at least the equal of the Tudor Estate in Kingston and arguably of higher quality than Grand Avenue/Elmbridge Avenue LASC. Haycroft is comparable in character, albeit on a smaller scale, with the Berg Estate, New Maldon. The architecture of the Haycroft estate is characteristic of its date, rather than exceptional, but it is more varied and of higher quality in its design and construction than most of the other local such estates. The house designs are strongly influenced by the styles that characterised more exclusive suburbs, and may have benefitted from the input of Frank Chown.

4.2.3 Although historic considerations are not a formal criterion for LASC designation, the estate is of interest as the work of a leading local builder, Ebenezer Thorogood and exemplifies the kind of 1930s suburban development that is the defining feature of this neighbourhood. Thorogood & Sons built a large number of other housing schemes in the area, of which the Tolworth Park Estate, grid of streets north of the bypass in southern Surbiton, is typical. Unlike Haycroft, it is uniform in design and scale and the houses are predominantly finished with rough-cast; its streets are largely indistinguishable from each other, or from a thousand other 1930s suburbs, and as such it compares unfavourably with Elmcroft Drive.

4.3 Conclusion and recommendation

4.3.1 The Haycroft estate does not have sufficient special architectural or historic character or appearance to justify designation as a conservation area.

4.3.2 Elmcroft Drive has heritage significance as one of the best local examples of an inter-war housing development by a leading local builder-developer. It has high quality, distinctive and well preserved architecture, with a consistent form, style, features, detailing and materials, enriched by a variety of designs within these parameters. The townscape is above average in quality for a development of this type and location and it is reasonably well-preserved.

4.3.3 Elmcroft Close and the bungalows at the west end of Elmcroft Drive do not have the same architectural or townscape quality as the rest of Elmcroft Drive, but they

18

are experienced as part of the same townscape and thus contribute to the overall character of the area. Unsympathetic development in the Close would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Drive.

4.3.4 The houses facing Hook Rise are of similar designs to those on Elmcroft Drive but they were built a little later, with no new features. This part of the Haycroft estate lacks the architectural variety, sense of enclosure and townscape quality of Elmcroft Drive. It does not contribute to the character of appearance of Elmcroft Drive. Therefore it is not considered to meet the criteria for LASC designation.

4.3.5 For the reasons set out above Elmcroft Drive and Elmcroft Close are considered to meet the Council’s criteria for LASC status.