31 March 2015
Mr. Jonathan Bore
Executive Director
Planning and Borough Development
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Town Hall
Hornton Street
London W8 7NX
Dear Mr. Bore:
Reference: PP/15/01574
John A. Boynton
Judith G. Boynton
42 St. Leonard’s Terrace
London SW3 4QH
Proposed Roof Terrace Development at Flat 3, Durham House, Durham Place, London SW34ET
OBJECTION
We wish to object to this planning application for various reasons, as follows:
1) There is inadequate information and specificity disclosed in the application and inadequate detail in the drawings to understand the application sufficiently and accurately. Furthermore, the applicant has filed a separate planning application PP/15/01560 that is directly linked to the requested development in this application PP/15/01574.
This approach makes each planning application confusing and there appear to be inconsistencies/inaccuracies between the two planning applications (see references to a new sash window in PP/15/01560 to be superseded by a new French door identified in a drawing of
PP/15/01574 leading to the new roof terrace. What in fact is being requested?). Importantly, the total scale of these two applications, when viewed together, illustrates that these development proposals are excessive and inconsistent with preserving the neighbourhood amenities and historical beauty and history of the Conservation Area.
2) The proposal requests permission to create a new roof terrace and add a new sash window. The drawing showing the proposed changes also refers to a proposed new French door replacing a new sash window that is requested in PP/15/01560, although the PP/15/01574 planning statement does not mention a new French door. The proposal also requests various changes to the existing flat roof to accommodate a new roof terrace.
3) These proposed changes would create numerous safety risks that are not acceptable for local pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. As illustrated during the last few days, very high wind speeds occur frequently near Durham House as they approach from the west along Christchurch Street, from the south across the grounds of the Royal Hospital, or from the east and north across the grounds of Burton Court. The proposed roof terrace would be very close to the pedestrian walkway

and Christchurch Street. It would be exposed to high winds on a regular basis and various objects
(such as furniture, sun umbrellas, etc.) could fly off the exposed roof terrace and fall onto pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles on Christchurch Street. Also, fire risk would be increased as embers from barbeque grilling or discarded cigarettes from the roof terrace could blow onto nearby properties.
4) The roof terrace would result in increased ongoing noise disturbances from people or music on the roof terrace. There would also be increased ongoing artificial light pollution from the new window and French door and the roof terrace itself, which would negatively affect the residential amenities of the numerous neighbours. Furthermore, the changes would significantly increase the overlooking of neighbouring properties from this flat, which would decrease the privacy of the neighbouring properties.
5) Given the above issues and risks that the proposed new roof terrace would create, the development is excessive. As stated in the planning application, the flat already has two external balconies overlooking Burton Court that are set back from the pedestrian walkway and street. These balconies can already be utilized for external enjoyment. Why would it be necessary to have a third external space as part of this flat? If greater outdoor space were desired, the owners could easily access the grounds of Burton Court and Royal Hospital, which are within a few minutes’ walk from their flat.
Conclusion
We appreciate our neighbour’s desire to enhance his property, but we feel that the adverse impacts on residential amenity and the Conservation Area, which affect a significant number of neighbours, outweigh his objective. Accordingly, we request that this planning application be refused.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments and concerns.
Sincerely,
John A. Boynton
Judith G. Boynton