Lower-ground flat extensions at Flat A, 95 St Mark's Road, Kensington, London W10

What was proposed

The application proposed replacement windows, rear and side extensions, and an internal courtyard for the lower-ground flat.

“PP/26/00557 Agenda Item: N032 Address:Flat A, 95 St Mark's Road, LONDON, W10 6JW Proposal: Revisions to lower ground flat to include replacement windows and proposed extensions to rear, side and internal courtyard.”

“/PP/26/00557:2 to the lower ground floor flat (Flat A). 3.2The site is located within the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area. 4.The proposal and any relevant planning history 4.1Planning permission is sought revisions to the lower ground floor flat to include replacement windows, as well as a rear and side extensions, and the creation of an internal courtyard.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The property is a three-storey terraced building divided into flats within the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area, with no relevant site planning history.

“2.Reason for committee consideration · Three or more objections were received during the consultation period and the recommendation is to grant. 3.The site and its surroundings 3.1 95 St Marks Road accommodates a three-storey terraced property located on the western side of St Marks Road. The property has been split into flats. This application relates solely…”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The rear and side extensions were considered modest, appropriately positioned and unlikely to harm the area’s character, neighbours’ light, privacy or outlook.

“Furthermore, the Council’s Tree Officer has raised no concerns regarding potential impacts on existing trees or vegetation to the rear of the site. The proposal is considered in accordance with GB16 of the Local Plan. 6.4Biodiversity net gain (BNG) has become mandatory from 12 February 2024 under the Environment Act 2021. The development would be below the threshold for BNG and therefore would be exempt.”

“6.8The proposed side extension would be modest in both depth and height, aligning with the scale of the rear extension. Owing to its positioning at the rear of the site and its relatively confined location, the extensions would not be readily visible within the wider area. As such, the proposals preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area. The proposed materials would comprise of brickwork to match existing.”

Officer report

What people said

Three objections raised concerns about noise, consultation, trees, light pollution, design, structural walls, drainage, ownership and licensing.

“/PP/26/00557:5 garden. 4 Proposed glass roof over the side passage would result in light pollution. The proposed glass roof over the side passage is modest in scale. Given its siting at the lower level in an enclosed position between built form, the structure would not result in significant light spill or glare affecting neighbouring properties.”

“As such, it is not considered that the proposal would appear incongruous or out of keeping within its context. It is acknowledged that the loss of the bay window is not ideal, however due its positioning at lower-ground floor, its loss is on balance, acceptable, Overall, the development is not considered result in harm to the character or appearance of the host property or the surrounding area, and the concerns raised are therefore not sufficient to warrant refusal of the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

[name withheld] spoke against the application, while the planning agent spoke in support.

The committee vote

The committee unanimously voted to grant planning permission with the listed conditions.

“Resolved unanimously: that planning permission be granted with the conditions listed in Section 9 of the report.”

Minutes