Planning and Borough Development
Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, LONDON, W8 7NX
Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
Mr Jonathan Bore
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/03 Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6PN
12 th August 2015
Our Ref: PP/15/01051
Your Ref: APP/K5600/W/15/3087242
Please ask for: Annabel Osborne
Dear Sirs,
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Appeal by Yorkshire Prosperity Plc
Site Address: 180 Finborough Road, LONDON, SW10 9AH
1.1 I write in response to your appeal start letter dated 29 th June 2014. This letter and attached documentation forms the Council’s Statement of Case relating to this appeal. The Officer’s delegated report sets out the details of the site, the relevant planning history, and full details of the proposal. The report also sets out the main points of the Council’s argument in relation to this case. This letter addresses the points raised in the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal.
1.2 The development proposed is the “ construction of a two storey rear extension (first and second floor), a lower ground rear extension, replacement of windows on a like for like basis, installation of roof terraces at each level and internal alterations to create 1no. studio, 2no. one bedroom flats, 1no. two bedroom flat..
”
1.3 The Council refused planning permission on 21 st May 2015 under reference
PP/15/01051. The reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed closet wing extension and other associated works to the rear of the property, due to their bulk, depth, siting and detailed design would be harmful to the character and appearance of the property and the terrace of buildings of which it forms part, therefore failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the 'The Boltons Conservation Area' and the setting of the nearby Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area and the Grade I registered Brompton Cemetery, contrary to policies of the Development Plan, in particular Core Strategy policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL6, CL9 and CL11.

Response to the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal
1.4 In paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 the appellant states that whether the proposal would result in ‘ substantial harm to or total loss of a designated heritage asset ’ should be a key deciding factor in the consideration of this appeal. The building itself is not listed and therefore would not constitute a ‘designated heritage asset.’ It is the bulk, form and design of the extension that is opposed due to its impact on the appearance of the building, terrace and the character of the conservation area and the setting of surrounding heritage assets. It is the Council’s opinion that whether the proposal is acceptable is visual terms and preserves or enhances the character of The Boltons and Brompton Cemetery conservation areas should be key considerations in the determination of this appeal.
1.5 The applicant makes reference to ‘public benefits’ in paragraph 3.1.4 of their statement. The proposal will result in the loss of the unit that is small in size at ground floor level. Whilst, the loss of this unit is not opposed, the increase in size of the other existing dwellings in this case would not constitute significant benefits that would outweigh the harmful visual impacts of this proposal.
1.6 The appellant also states that the scheme will have little visual impact on The
Boltons, Brompton Cemetery Conservation Areas and upon the setting of Brompton
Cemetry itself. The Council do not agree with the Appellant’s argument that the scheme will not have an impact of the setting of these heritage assets. The site forms part of The Boltons Conservations Area and lies adjacent to the Brompton Cemetery
Conservation Area and Brompton Cemetery itself. The site is in a very exposed location and it can be seen from Brompton Cemetery and public and private viewpoints which form part of conservation areas. Consequently, the proposal would have a significant impact on the setting of these heritage assets. The building is in a very prominent position within the area and its impact on the setting of adjacent conservation areas and the character and appearance of the context would be considerable and is harmful.
1.7 In paragraph 4.1.4, the appellant states that there will be no harm to the setting of the
Brompton Cemetery. There is provision within Core Strategy Policy CL11 for the
Council to take into account views within, into, and out of conservation areas, including the rear of properties; the impact of the setting of these heritage assets from development on sites adjacent to conservation areas and listed buildings; and the setting of landmarks. With regard specifically to views, these are important in determining the overall character and appearance of the conservation area, and the importance of such public and private views is outlined in Paragraph 34.3.92 of the
Reasoned Justification for Core Strategy Policy CL11 (Views).
1.9 In paragraph 4.2.2, the appellant states that all of the existing units constitute sub-standard accommodation as they are small in size and they refer to the London Plan minimum space standards. The two units at ground floor level at 25sqm are extremely small in size and their amalgamation is not opposed. The existing one bedroom unit at first floor level at 45sqm approx. is an acceptable size for this type of dwelling. At second floor level, there is a three bedroom unit which at 45 sqm approx. falls short of the minimum size for a 3 bedroom unit at
74sq m. The lower ground floor unit at 50sqm approx. is also under-sized with the minimum size being 61 sqm for a 2 bedroom unit within the London Plan. However, aside from the two units at ground floor level, these dwellings and the building itself could be re-configured to provide better quality residential units without generating harm in visual terms. Furthermore, the London Plan space standards have been adopted very recently and not all buildings within the Borough that have been converted some time ago meet these standards. Aside from the

two units at ground floor level, none of the other units constitute extremely poor accommodation in terms of size, despite the fact they do not meet the London Plan standards.
1.10 The appellant states (in paragraph 4.2.3 of their statement) that the proposals bring forward a number of recognisable benefits which include a number of repair and refurbishment works. Whilst these alterations are welcomed, they are very minor and would not constitute any significant benefits that would justify the harmful visual impacts generated by this particular proposal.
1.11 The applicant states that the rear of the site is screened by a number of trees; these are deciduous and are only in bloom part of the year. When they are not in bloom, the rear would be visible from Brompton Cemetery. The new extension would also be visible from other properties within this terrace; these private viewpoints should also be considered as required by Core Strategy Policy CL11.
1.12 The appellant state that the appeal building makes no positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council disagree with this statement, the building forms part of the conservation area and makes an important contribution to the group value of the terrace. The building has not been altered to such a degree that it has limited or no aesthetic significance. It is also located within a prominent position in this part of the conservation area, being highly visible from a number of other dwellings within this terrace and Brompton Cemetery itself.
1.13 The Council remains of the view that the proposal would fail to respect the architectural integrity of the host building and terrace and to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area and the setting of nearby heritage assets. The new extension would have an uncomfortable relationship with the parent building and terrace due to its size.
1.14 It is the Council’s opinion that there is no material justification in this case for making a decision that would conflict with policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL6, CL8 and CL11 of the
Core Strategy. The Inspector is respectfully requested to dismiss the appeal.
1.15
Without prejudice to the Council’s case, the LPA has attached some suggested conditions in Appendix A should the Inspector be minded to allow the appeal and grant planning permission.
Yours faithfully,
Elen Richards
Central Team Leader
For the Executive Director of Planning and Borough Development
Direct Line: 020 7361 3190
Web: www.rbkc.gov.u

APPENDIX A – CONDITIONS WHICH THE COUNCIL WOULD WISH TO SEE IMPOSED
IF THE APPEAL WERE TO BE ALLOWED
1. Time limit (Full PP)
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. Compliance with approved drawings
The development shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on submitted plans 01-91-009, 01-91-010, 01-91-001, 01-91-002, 01-91-
003, 01-91-004, 01-91-006, 01-91-007, 01-91-008, 02-03-005, 02-03-006, 02-03-007, 02-03-
008, 02-04-002, 02-05-003, 02-05-004
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(s) 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, CL6 and
CL8 of the Core Strategy.
4. Sash windows in painted timber
The windows hereby permitted shall be timber framed, white painted, double hung, sliding sashes, and so maintained.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the building and the character of the conservation area, in accordance with policies of the development plan in particular policies CL1, CL2 and
CL3 of the Core Strategy.
5. Roof Terraces – Black painted railings
The safety barriers for the new roof terraces shall comprise black painted metal railings, and so maintained.
Reason - To preserve the appearance of the building and the character of the conservation area, in accordance with policies of the development plan in particular policies CL1, CL2,
CL3 and CL6 of the Core Strategy.