Planning and Borough Development
Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, LONDON, W8 7NX
Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
Mr Jonathan Bore
Catherine Evans
The Planning Inspectorate
3/10a Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6PN
1st April 2015
My reference: PP/14/07361
Your reference: APP/K5600/W/15/3003573
Please ask for: Mr John Shearman
Dear Ms Evans
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Appeal by Mr Ivo Hesmondhalgh
61 Harrington Gardens, London SW7 4JZ.
The case officer’s report sent with the appeal questionnaire provides details of the
planning history, consultation responses, relevant policies, site and surroundings, and
an analysis of the proposal, and it is not the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) intention to
repeat those details here.
Further to the above it is noted that since the refusal of the application to which this
appeal relates there is an addition to the relevant planning history for this property:
Planning permission (PP/15/00055) was granted on 17th March 2015 for the infill of the
central lightwell at lower ground floor level, alterations to the first floor roof terrace at the
front, including the removal of the lean-to extension, the installation of new windows on
the side elevations, and the installation of soil vent pipes and gas boiler flues. This
permission includes some of the elements of the works proposed in the scheme to which
the current appeal relates but not those to which the Council has raised objection. A
copy of the decision, case officer’s delegated report, and approved proposed drawings
are included at Appendix A of this letter.
In relation to the appellant’s appeal statement I would make a number of comments.
Please note that where no comment is made it does not follow that the Council accepts
the point made.
Direct Line: 020 7361 2101
Fax:
020 7361 3463
Web:
www.rbkc.gov.uk
Paragraph 2.2
The reference to the infilling of the open arch screens at Nos. 71 and 73 is of no great
relevance to the consideration of this appeal since the infilling appears to have occurred
many years ago.
Paragraphs 3.6, 4.1, and 4.4
The drawing 204 PL72A gives some indication of the implications of what was previously
approved, but another drawing, submitted by the applicant to the Council for information
purposes, 204 PL72, gives a clearer indication. This drawing is included at Appendix B
of this letter. It shows that a small part of the existing opening would be in filled but that
the large proportion of the existing opening would remain open. It is useful to consider
this drawing in relation to the photographs taken from No.59 Harrington Gardens which
are included at Appendix C of this letter.
Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2
Policy CL5 of the Core Strategy, along with the reasoned justification, has been
amended. A copy of the revised Policy, and reasoned justification, which was adopted
on 3rd December 2014, was sent with the appeal questionnaire. It is noted that the
amended Policy, and reasoned justification, formed the basis of the refusal of planning
permission. It is also noted that Paragraph 34.3.50 no longer forms part of the reasoned
justification, and is replaced in the new reasoned justification by Paragraph 34.3.40.
Paragraph 7.2.6 and 7.2.7
The appellant appears to be referring to views of the sky. It is the view of the Council
that a harmful sense of enclosure would result here, even though there are no, or very
limited, views of the sky already. This is on the basis that a solid, effectively two storey,
wall, immediately on the boundary of the existing lightwell, would result in a significant
harmful sense of enclosure compared with the existing situation.
Paragraphs 7.28 – 7.2.11 (inc)
It is accepted that the view is not particularly attractive. However, the sense of enclosure
that would result from the proposed infilling of most of the opening would be both
significant and harmful. Furthermore, the fact that the impact on the ground floor window
might be the same as for the existing basement window represents no justification for
the proposal, particularly since it would also result in a significant and harmful increased
sense of enclosure for the basement flat and its terrace area.
Finally, it is accepted that a white painted rendered wall might be more attractive to look
at than a non white painted rendered wall, but the white painting of the proposed wall
would not justify the significant and harmful increased sense of enclosure that would
result.
Paragraph 8.2
For the reasons set out in both the case officer’s report and this letter, the proposal
would result in a significant and harmful increased sense of enclosure, and the fact that
the existing “view” is not particularly attractive would not justify this increase.
Conclusion
No further amplification of the LPA’s case is considered necessary and the LPA
respectfully requests that the Inspector dismisses the appeal. Finally, the following
appendices are included with this letter:
Appendix A – Decision, case officers report, and approved drawings, for planning
permission Ref PP/15/00055 granted 17th March 2015.
Appendix B – Drawing submitted by appellant for information only during determination
of application to which this appeal relates.
Appendix C - Photographs taken from 59 Harrington Gardens showing the relationship
with the appeal property.
Appendix D - Suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed.
Yours Sincerely
Elen Richards
Central Team Leader
For the Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
APPENDIX A
PLANNING PERMISSION REF PP/15/00055 DATED 17TH MARCH 2015
-
DECISION
CASE OFFICERS REPORT
APPROVED DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B
DRAWING SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT FOR INFORMATION DURING
DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATION THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL.
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM 59 HARRINGTON GARDENS SHOWING
RELATIONSHIP WITH APPEAL PROPERTY .
APPENDIX D.
CONDITIONS THE COUNCIL WOULD WISH TO SEE IMPOSED ON THE PLANNING
PERMISSION IF THE APPEAL WERE ALLOWED
1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the
expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, to avoid the accumulation of unexercised Planning Permissions.
2
The development shall not be carried out except in complete
accordance with the details shown on submitted plans: PL00, PL45A,
PL46A, PL47A, PL48A, PL49A, PL50A, PL51A, and Unnumbered
Schedule of Photographs
Reason - The details are material to the acceptability of the proposals, and
to ensure accordance with the development plan.
3
Materials - To match existing
All work and work of making good shall be finished to match the
existing exterior of the building in respect of materials, colour, texture,
profile and, in the case of brickwork, facebond and pointing, and shall
be so maintained.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the building and the character of
the area in accordance with policies of the development plan in particular
policies CL1, CL2, and CL3 of the Core Strategy.
4
Doors in painted timber
External doors hereby permitted shall be timber framed and painted,
and so maintained.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the building and the character of
the area, in accordance with policies of the development plan in particular
policies CL1, and CL2 of the Core Strategy.
5
Roof Terrace – Black painted metal railings
The railings to the rear of the roof terrace at the front at first floor level
shall be of black painted metal construction, of traditional design, and
so maintained.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the building and the character of
the area, in accordance with policies of the development plan in particular
policies CL1, CL2, CL3, and CL6 of the Core Strategy.
6
Roof Terrace – No Tall Items
No items such as plants, umbrellas, heaters, screens, trellises, or other
items, which rise higher than 1100mm from finished floor/decking level,
shall be affixed to or placed upon the terrace at first floor level at any
time at any time.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the property and character of the
area by ensuring the terrace is unobtrusive, in accordance with policies of
the development plan, in particular policies CL1 and CL6 of the Core
Strategy.