Single-storey rear extension at 55 Hillgate Place, Kensington, London W8

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Kensington And Chelsea Planning Applications Committee on 4 Nov 2025.

PP/25/04518RefusedAgainst officer advice

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey rear infill extension and an extension to the rear of the dwelling’s closet wing.

“/PP/25/04518:2 3.1 55 Hillgate Place is a single dwelling containing three storeys. The building is located within a terrace group of 22 buildings. Each house within this terrace group is painted a different pastel colour. 3.2The building is located within the Kensington Conservation Area 4.The proposal and any relevant planning history 4.1The proposal is for a single storey infill extension to rear of the dwelling house and an extension to the rear of the closet wing.”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The assessment considered conservation character, neighbouring living conditions and sustainable drainage, with drainage information required before construction.

“The application is supported by a RES in accordance with CD16 of the Local Plan. 6.3The decisive issues are: iWhether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the building and wider conservation area; iiWhether the proposal would continue to ensure good living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; and iiiThe potential impact on sustainable drainage.”

“Sustainable drainage 6.10Policy GB12 of the Local Plan requires development to contribute towards a reduction in the rate and volume of surface water run-off into the combined sewer network through measures that promote multifunctional benefits. No Sustainable Drainage Strategy was submitted with the application to outline any efforts made to reduce runoff. The applicant will be required to submit this information to the Local Planning Authority before any works commence.”

Officer report

What people said

Thirty-four letters raised concerns including inaccurate drawings, overlooking, loss of light, enclosure, overdevelopment, conservation harm and garden encroachment.

“/PP/25/04518:5 7.112 nearby owners/occupiers were notified directly of the application. The application was advertised in the Gazette on 01/08/2025. A statutory notice advertising the application was posted near the site on 01/08/2025. 8.34 letters were receivedobjecting to the application, summarised as: CommentResponse 1 Objector raised concerns regarding: ·Misleading and inaccurate Drawings and Photographs. ·False Representation of Roof & Rear of 55 Hillgate place to No.”

“/PP/25/04518:6 existing level. Existing plans show an existing infill extension. The proposed plans suggest the use of slate tiles to match existing. However, none of the rear extensions in Hillgate Place have ever used slate tiles for infills. All rear extensions have used London bricks and the roofs are entirely flat (not sloping). Objects to the removal of the L shape rear garden that is typical for the area. Extension exceed the general rear building line.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector addressed the committee against the application, and members were told about additional objections including one from a councillor.

The committee vote

The committee voted by majority not to adopt the officer recommendation, with one councillor abstaining.

“Resolved by majority (with Cllr Areti abstaining): to not adopt the officer recommendation to approve planning permission.”

Minutes

The members' reasons

The resolution gives these reasons:

  1. for refusal as proposed by Cllr Idris and seconded by Cllr Verboven: i. The rear extension(s) by reason of their bulk, design, size and prominent upper ground floor siting would fail to read as subordinate to the main house and fail to respond to the established context and character of the local area by diluting the sense of garden openness at the rear of the site and within the terrace group. As
Minutes

Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.

Councillors at the meeting

  • Anne CyronConservative
  • Aarien AretiConservativeAbstained
  • Walaa IdrisConservative
  • Will LaneConservative
  • Tim VerbovenLib Dem

The minutes give the votes of the councillors shown with one; they do not say how the others voted.

Proposed by Councillor Walaa Idris, seconded by Councillor Tim Verboven.

Source: Plota analysis of the council's minutes; parties from the council's list of councillors.

Sources

  • Kensington And Chelsea Planning Applications Committee minutes, 4 November 2025
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Kensington And Chelsea's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Tuesday 4 November 2025
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Refused, against officer advice
Councillors
5Conservative 4Lib Dem 1Show votes
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)

This committee's year

64 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 6 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →