Pitched roof extension at 9 Churton Place, London SW1V

What was proposed

The application sought a roof extension changing the existing butterfly roof into a pitched roof, with roof lights, to enlarge the family home.

“The proposed development is to erect a roof extension to turn an existing butterfly roof into a pitched roof with new roof lights in connection with the enlargement of this single family dwelling house.”

Officer report

Recent planning history

Permission was granted in July 2025 for rear and lower-ground-floor extensions and replacement external floor tiles and front railings.

“25/02829/FULL Replacement and enlargement of existing rear extension, rear infill extension on northwestern side replacement of external floor tiles and installation of front railing. Application Permitted 10 July 2025”

Officer report

Officers’ main concerns

Officers found less than substantial heritage harm, limited mainly private benefits, and no significant neighbouring amenity concerns.

“The proposed roof extension in this case is in contrary to City Plan Policy 40E and PNP Policy PIM3 as it would protrude above parapet which disrupt the undisturbed roofscape as view from pavement level. The proposals are considered harmful to the Conservation Area with the level of harm being at the lower end of less than substantial.”

“The proposal will add some height and bulk to the building. The increase in height to the building is modest. By virtue of the setting of the application site, the proposed roof extension does not raise significant amenity concerns, therefore.”

Officer report

What residents said

Objectors cited disruption to the terrace’s symmetry and roofline, while supporters considered the design sympathetic and beneficial for family housing.

“- The proposed roof extension would disrupt the original architectural symmetry of Churton Place, particularly the butterfly roofs at Nos. 7–9, which were intentionally designed to be lower and concealed from street view. - The extension would be architecturally inappropriate and introduce a visible and incongruous element at the end of the cul-de-sac, undermining the uniform roofline and historic character of this part the Pimlico Conservation Area, and contradicts the…”

“- The extension would improve internal layouts and meet the need for family-sized housing in Pimlico - The extension would preserve single-family homes and prevent conversions to multiple occupancy…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Supporters included representatives, the architect, the applicant and the ward councillor; two speakers addressed the committee in objection.

The committee vote

The application was granted, with three councillors voting for and two councillors voting against.

“RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATION BE GRANTED (Grant: Councillors Hassan, Rigby, Galley, Refuse: Councillors Ormsby and Small-Edwards)”

Minutes