Rebuilt dwelling with basement at 38 Smith Terrace, Chelsea, London SW3

What was proposed

The application proposed rebuilding the house behind its retained façade, changing the front stucco, extending the lower ground floor and adding a basement, infill extension and mansard roof.

“PP/25/06735 Agenda Item: S016 Address:38 Smith Terrace, LONDON, SW3 4DH Proposal: Demolition and rebuild of dwellinghouse behind retained façade including removal and replacement of stucco to front elevation; extension of lower ground floor under 50% of rear garden and creation of basement level beneath part of house; erection of single storey infill addition and a redesigned mansard roof.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The three-storey house lies within the Royal Hospital Conservation Area, with an existing basement, a high rear boundary wall and an unusual L-shaped garden boundary.

“/PP/25/06735:2 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 The application site is a 3 storey property (including mansard roof extension) on the north side of Smith Terrace within the Royal Hospital Conservation Area. It has an existing basement storage area with a low floor to ceiling height beneath the main building.”

“The application site is located on a slight kink in the road, resulting in the rear elevation of 39 Smith Terrace facing slightly towards the rear garden/existing two-storey rear extension to the application dwelling. 4.The proposal and any relevant planning history 4.1The proposal is for the following works: ·Demolition and rebuild of dwellinghouse behind retained façade, including the part width 2 storey rear extension and the mansard roof extension.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and appeal

An earlier scheme was refused and dismissed on appeal, while separate applications for the mansard, infill extension and reduced basement were later approved.

“/PP/25/06735:3 4.3The proposed single storey rear extension and mansard roof extension were not included in either of the reasons for refusal and consequently individual planning applications for these elements were approved under ref nos PP/25/04410 and PP/25/04114 in August 2025.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered that the reduced basement, façade works and extensions would preserve the conservation area, protect neighbours’ living conditions and broadly comply with policy, subject to conditions.

“This constitutes a public benefit that outweighs any harm. 6.10The proposed works are identical to the works assessed above by the Planning Inspector and therefore it is concluded that the current proposals overcome the relevant previous reasons for refusal, given the genuine fall back position of the scheme allowed on appeal.”

“/PP/25/06735:8 6.16The proposed basement has also been reduced in area since the previous refusal by approximately 6sqm in area to the rear garden. The proposed basement is therefore now below 50% of the area of the rear garden. The proposed front lightwell remains at 100% of the front garden area and therefore the proposal does not strictly comply with part A as the basement will be more than 50% of the front garden area.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

Thirty-four letters objected, raising concerns about the earlier refusal, demolition, party walls, consultation, pollution, traffic, noise and construction disruption; consultees raised no objection subject to conditions.

“/PP/25/06735:12 3 We have not been able to view the application in full due to the cyber attack. The application should not slip through without proper consultation. A second round of consultation was undertaken to ensure all residents had the opportunity to provide their feedback. 4 Increased pollution, traffic, noise and obstruction to the pavement and there is already roadworks, parking suspensions, road closures and traffic problems in the area.”

“Other consultees and organisations ConsulteeComment Where in the report this is considered Director of Transportation and Highways No objection to previous applications subject to CTMP condition Paragraph 6.19 and condition 7 Director of Environmental Health (air quality) No objection to previous applications subject to informatives re control of dust/emissions, NRMM and combustion plant Informatives 7, 8 and 9 Director of Environmental Health (noise) No objection to…”

Officer report

Who spoke

There were no speakers for the item.

The vote and decision

The committee unanimously granted planning permission with the conditions in section 9 of the officer report.

“Resolved unanimously: that planning permission be granted with the conditions at section 9 of the officer report.”

Minutes