Garden room and pergola at 36 Holland Park, Kensington, London W11

The site and surroundings

The structures would stand in the rear garden, away from the listed building, street and neighbouring properties, within a conservation area.

“/PP/25/04034:4 iWhether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character, appearance and significance of the building and wider conservation area; iiWhether the proposal would safeguard the special historic or architectural interest of the designated heritage asset; and iiiWhether the proposal would continue to ensure good living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.”

“6.8The proposed green roof on the garden room would also limit visual impacts on the surrounding properties that look down into this garden, allowing the roof to blend into the garden context. This is acceptable in accordance with Policy CD1 and CD2 of the Local Plan 2024. Most of the glazing for the garden room would face south away from the properties that look down into the garden, further reducing the visual impact of the structure.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The arboricultural officer raised no objection subject to tree protection and replacement planting, while the conservation officer raised concerns about size, openness and the awning.

“/PP/25/04034:8 14 Holland Park Residents Association: Raised concerns with the same points as the previous objector: ·Oversized Structure ·Light pollution ·The structures would overcrowd the garden / open space ·Flood risk, natural drainage should be preserved Most of this objector’s concerns have been addressed in the rows above. In regards to concerns around flooding and drainage.”

“/PP/25/04034:9 development and adjacent garden spaces within the Holland Park estate. Arboricultural Officer The applicant proposes to remove one tree (T12 a cherry) which is in poor condition and would have to be felled whether the works go ahead or not. There are some incursions into the Root Protection Areas of a number of trees but, except for one, these are minor and in all cases, provided the screw piles are used the retained trees should not be harmed.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Fifteen letters objected, raising concerns about size, trees, biodiversity, noise, light, privacy, drainage, green space and property values.

“Impact on Property Values: ·The development undermines the character of the area and may negatively affect neighbouring property values. Raised concerns with the same points as the previous objector: ·Oversized Structure ·Threat to Protected Trees and Biodiversity ·Noise, Light, and Privacy Concerns ·Impact on Property Values 3 Raised concerns with: ·Oversized Structure ·Threat to Protected Trees and Biodiversity ·Noise, Light, and Privacy Concerns ·Impact on Property…”

“Raised concerns with: ·Oversized Structures ·Threat to Protected Trees and Biodiversity ·Noise, Light, and Privacy Concerns 9 Raised concerns with: ·Oversized Structures ·Threat to Protected Trees and Biodiversity ·Noise, Light, and Privacy Concerns 10 Raised concerns with: ·Oversized Structures ·Threat to Protected Trees and Biodiversity ·Noise, Light, and Privacy Concerns 11 Raised concerns with the same points as the previous objector: ·Harmful to conservation area…”

Officer report

Who spoke

No speakers addressed the committee on this application.

The committee vote

The committee unanimously approved the related planning permission and unanimously granted listed building consent.

“Resolved unanimously (PP/25/04034): that planning permission be granted with the conditions in section 9 of the officer report.”

“Resolved unanimously (LB/25/04035): that listed building consent be granted with the conditions in section 2 of the officer report.”

Minutes