Mansard roof extension at 32 and 32A Mallord Street, Chelsea, London SW3

What was proposed

The application proposed a mansard roof extension, partial rear ground-floor infill, replacement timber-framed double glazing and refurbishment works.

“PP/26/02509 Agenda Item: S055 Address:32 and 32A Mallord Street, LONDON, SW3 6DU Proposal: Construction of mansard roof extension, rear ground floor partial infill extension, new timber framed double glazing to match existing and associated refurbishment works.”

“Vale End, 32 Mallord Street, Chelsea, is therefore not recommended for listing” 4.The proposal and any relevant planning history 4.1This application seeks planning permission for: ·Construction of mansard roof extension; ·Rear ground floor partial infill extension; ·New timber framed double glazing to match existing and; ·Associated refurbishment works.”

Officer report

The site

The site is a three-storey semi-detached building containing two residential units within the Chelsea Park Carlyle Conservation Area.

“/PP/26/02509:2 3.1 The site is located on the northern side of Mallord Street and is a three-storey semi-detached building. The building is separated into two separate residential units. 3.2The property was built in 1913 and was designed for the artist Arthur C Mitchell by architect Charles R G Hall. The property is noted as making a positive contribution to the history and architectural character and appearance of the Chelsea Park Carlyle Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Site history

The building was built in 1913, was not recommended for listing, and a certificate confirmed that reconfiguring the two dwellings was lawful.

“/PP/26/02509:3 CL/26/02069 Certificate of Lawfulness in connection with the proposed reconfiguration of two existing dwellings within the building, confirming the works do not amount to development.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objectors cited the roof’s height and bulk, living conditions, roof terrace, nearby rooflights, conservation harm, lawful use and deficient information.

“/PP/26/02509:6 8.Consultations carried out Comments from interested parties 8.1The application was advertised in the Gazette on 22/5/26 A statutory notice advertising the application was posted near the site on 22/5/26 8.28 letters were receivedobjecting to the application, summarised as: CommentResponse 1 Mansard Roof extension would alter the street scene, and be unacceptable due to height and bulk.”

“The bulk of the roof extension would be below the existing highest ridge line and unlikely to cause overshadowing impacts to this property. 5 Potential harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and surround buildings. The design of the development is to be in keeping with the existing building and surrounding conservation area context. Refer to the character and appearance section of this report. 6Lawful use as an Artist’s Studio.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A member of the public spoke against the application, while the planning agent and an architect spoke in support.

The committee vote

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

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

Minutes