Basement and house alterations at 44 Victoria Road, Kensington, London W8

What was proposed

The application proposed a basement with lightwells, alterations to extensions and elevations, a rooflight, cycle racks, a bin store and new front railings.

“THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 09/10/2025 REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND PLACE Application: PP/25/04318 Agenda Item: N116 Address:44 Victoria Road, LONDON, W8 5RQ Proposal: Construction of basement under footprint of building with lightwells; demolition of single-storey side extension/ garage and rear conservatory at lower ground level and construction of (smaller) single-storey side extension; insertion of rooflight in rear…”

“4.The proposal and any relevant planning history 4.1Planning permission is sought for the excavation and construction of a basement storey under the footprint of existing building with front and rear light wells (both concealed with metal grilles) and featuring an integral swimming pool; demolition of single storey side extension/garage and attached rear conservatory at lower ground level and their replacement with a new (smaller) single-storey side extension; installation…”

Officer report

The site and its homes

The property is a semi-detached building in the De Vere Conservation Area containing three residential homes.

“It is recommended the Committee grants planning permission with the conditions listed in Section 9 of this report. 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 property is a semi-detached building located on the western side of Victoria Road (VR) between the junctions of Cottesmore Gardens to the north and Eldon Road to the south.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because it would preserve or enhance the conservation area, protect neighbours, safeguard structures and control construction effects.

“1.2The proposed development would also safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The submitted Construction Method Statement (containing a section on Noise, Dust and Vibration Mitigation Measures) and Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan are also acceptable and subject to relevant conditions, the proposal complies with relevant planning policies for a basement development, as well as other relevant policies in the development plan.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three people addressed the committee in objection, while the agent and another supporter addressed it in support.

What members decided

Members did not adopt the officer recommendation to approve permission with conditions and instead supported refusal reasons concerning heritage harm and the internal reconfiguration.

“Resolved unanimously: to not adopt the Officer’s recommendations to approve planning permission with the conditions listed in Section 9 of the report.”

“Resolved unanimously as proposed by Cllr Adourian and seconded by Cllr North: to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:”

Minutes

The committee’s reasons

The committee refused permission because the redesign would harm the street scene and conservation area, while the resulting dwellings would be low quality and not independent homes.

“The proposed development, by reason of the proposed demolition, elevational changes and redesign, would diminish the positive contribution the property makes to the Victoria Road street scene and wider De Vere Conservation Area. As a result, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the harm has not been outweighed by public benefits.”

“The proposal involves an internal reconfiguration which would, by its layout and design, result in a material change of use. The resultant dwellings on site would fail to contribute to the Borough’s housing stock as independent dwellings and, by design, would be both low quality and substandard. The proposal is contrary to Policies HO1, HO2, HO4 of the Local Plan 2024 and Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.”

Minutes