Rear lower ground extension at 65 Blenheim Crescent, Kensington, London W11

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey rear lower ground extension to the existing dwellinghouse.

“The Flood Risk Assessment and SuDS Assessments outlines that the extension would be built on a permeable paving base supported through concrete ground flooring. There would be no increase in impermeable surfaces. The SUDS recommendation is to replace the existing impermeable garden surface with permeable paving to improve the drainage of the site. This would be secured through condition 4 .”

“The design incorporates a simple and subordinate form that responds appropriately to the architectural character of the host building and wider terrace group. Importantly, the existing upper storey bay window projection, which is a consistent and defining feature of the rear elevations along this terrace row, would be fully retained.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a three-bedroom terraced house within the Ladbroke Conservation Area, backing onto a communal private garden.

“/PP/26/00828:2 3.1 The subject site comprises a three-bedroom terraced house extending over five floors. The property forms part of a row of dwellings which were constructed between 1860 and 1869. 3.2The site backs on to Blenheim & Elgin Crescent private garden which is a communal resident’s private garden accessed from the rear of the property. 3.3There is a TPO to the front of the site, but a site visit confirmed there are no mature trees on the site.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permission was granted for changes including a rear dormer, Juliet balcony, entrance steps and facade repainting.

“4.3The relevant planning history is set out below: ReferenceDescriptionDecision PP/26/0896 Rear elevation: construction of rear dormer, addition of Juliet balcony; front entrance area: upgrading existing steps to portland stone; facades: repainting of existing painted areas on facade with permitted colour Granted - 27/05/26 5.Main policies and strategies relevant to the decision The development plan 5.1The main planning considerations applying to the site and the associated…”

Officer report

The main planning issues

The main issues were the effect on heritage and the listed garden’s setting, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

“/PP/26/00828:5 Issues and balancing 6.14The proposal due to its rear location, appropriate scale, and materials would preserve the character, appearance and significance of the building, the wider terrace group and the Ladbroke Conservation Area. The proposal would preserve the setting of the registered listed garden and would also ensure the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby buildings would be safeguarded.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Three objection letters and objections from the Ladbroke Association raised heritage, light, privacy, design and cumulative impact concerns; consultees had no objections.

“/PP/26/00828:6 to reduce impact. ·Harm to Living Conditions and Conservation Area Impact and Cumulative Over-Burdening ·Breach of policies – CD1, CD3, CD4, CD7, CD10, the rear garden of the subject site. This development would result in mutual overlooking into the gardens which is acceptable.”

“/PP/26/00828:7 space compared with the heritage loss. Statutory consultees ConsulteeComment Where in the report this is considered Gardens TrustNo objections.6.7 Other consultees and organisations ConsulteeComment Where in the report this is considered Air Quality Officer No objections.6.5 9.Recommended conditions if the application is granted 1.Time limit (Full PP) The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two people addressed the committee in objection, and the applicant addressed it 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