Roof terrace at 49 Clareville Street, Kensington, London SW7

What was proposed

The application proposed using the flat roof as a roof terrace, with metal balustrades and planters.

“PP/25/06610 Agenda Item: S017 Address:49 Clareville Street, LONDON, SW7 5AX Proposal: Use of the flat roof as a roof terrace and erection of balustrades and planters Applicant: [the applicant]: MrJ Haines Savills Properties notified:Objections:Support:Comments:Petition: 6 12000 Conservation area:Queen's Gate 1.Summary 1.1Weight has been given to the previous refusal and subsequent appeal (refs. PP/12/01642 and APP/K5600/D/12/2182969).”

“/PP/25/06610:2 3.The site and its surroundings 3.1 The property is a three storey end terrace dwelling located on the south side of Clareville Street, close to the junction with Gloucester Road. The property boarders neighbouring properties on Clareville Road and forms part of a small, distinct terrace of four properties. Access to the rear of the site is via a private road, which separates this terrace from the properties on Gloucester Road.”

Officer report

Earlier terrace applications

Two terrace applications were refused in 2012 and their appeals were dismissed because of conservation-area and neighbouring-living-condition harm.

“/PP/25/06610:3 4.5This application was appealed (under reference Appeal Ref: APP/K5600/D/12/2176465). The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found harm to the Queen’s Gate Conservation Area and that the development would unacceptably worsen the living conditions of nearby residents.”

“/PP/25/06610:4 floor level. The inspector found harm to the Queen’s Gate Conservation Area and neighbouring living conditions. 4.8In this application, the proposed roof terrace has been reduced in size since the earlier application. The terrace has been set in from the eastern elevation and includes an area of landscaping. 4.9Officers visited the site on 01/04/2026.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the smaller, set-back terrace and planting addressed earlier concerns about appearance, overlooking, noise and disturbance.

“Character and appearance 6.5As seen above, an application for the retention of the roof terrace was submitted in 2012 (PP/12/00545) but refused and dismissed on appeal. The main concern within the refusals was that that the roof terrace would, by reason of its location and scale, would result in a detrimental increase in overlooking to neighbouring properties to the east on Clareville Grove; and that the terrace would result in a detrimental increase in noise and disturbance…”

“/PP/25/06610:6 building and wider Queens Gate Conservation area. In conclusion, the proposal is acceptable on design and character grounds and would comply with policies CD1, CD2, CD4, CD12 and CD15 of the Local Plan 2024, preserving the character, appearance and significance of the conservation area.”

Officer report

Objections received

Twelve letters objected, including objections from three ward councillors, raising concerns about short-term letting, privacy, disturbance, design and the earlier refusal.

“/PP/25/06610:7 8.212 letters were receivedobjecting to the application, including from Cllr Janet Evans, Cllr Greg Hammond and Cllr Quentin Marshall - Councillors for Courtfield Ward summarised as: CommentResponse 1 Concern with the use of the property as Airbnb/short term lets It is noted that the current application seeks permission for roof terrace. The proposal does not include any formal proposal for the use of the property as short-term accommodation.”

“In this case, the roof terrace is set back from the main elevation and, given the comparable height of neighbouring buildings, would not result in materially increased overlooking. 3 Impact on design and conservation area and appearance and lack of precedent.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four objectors addressed the committee, followed by the applicant’s planning consultant speaking in support.

The committee vote

Members voted by a majority not to adopt the recommendation to grant planning permission, with one named councillor dissenting.

“Resolved by majority (with Cllr Husband dissenting): not to adopt the recommendation to grant planning permission.”

Minutes