Planning and Borough Development
Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, LONDON, W8 7NX
Executive Director Planning and Borough Development
Mr Graham Stallwood
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/10a Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN
9th July 2015
My reference: PP/14/08981 and LB/14/08982
Your reference: APP/K5600/W/15/3028939
Please ask for: Alison Long
Dear Sir or Madam,
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Re: 26 Chesham Place, London, SW1X 8HH
I refer to the appeal made by Mr Kovanda against the Council’s decision to refuse
planning permission and listed building consent for the creation of two-storey infill
extension to area of terrace on 3rd floor.
This letter and the delegated report (attached as Appendix A) and decision notices
(attached as Appendix B and C), constitute this Council’s written representations on this
case.
Relevant Legislation and Central Government Guidance.
The Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework for the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea was adopted on December 8th 2010, and contains planning
policies which have succeeded the majority of those in the Unitary Development Plan
(UDP). For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004, the ‘Development Plan’ for the appeal site at the time of the application comprised
the Core Strategy, the London Plan (July 2015).
Direct Line: 020 7361 2988
Web:
www.rbkc.gov.uk
The following Core Strategy Policies are relevant to the consideration of this appeal: CL1
CL2
CL3
CL4
CL9
CL11
(Context and Character)
(Design Quality)
(Heritage Assets – Conservation Areas and Historic Spaces)
(Listed Buildings)
(Extensions and Modifications)
(Views)
The status of the development plan is confirmed by Section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 which states:
“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination
to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in
accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
The London Plan also forms part of the Development Plan Policies for the Royal
Borough. No policies were considered to be relevant to this appeal.
The Council have also considered the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of
this appeal. The matter in dispute in the appeal is the impact of the proposal on the
special architectural and historic interest and heritage significance of the adjoining
Grade II listed building and its setting and the character and appearance of this part of
the Chelsea Conservation Area. Chapter 12 of the NPPF refers to the importance of
conserving and enhancing of the historic environment. Paragraph 132 states:
“When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a
designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.”
Relevant Planning History
The applications for planning permission and listed building consent which are the
subject of this appeal were refused on 9th February 2015. The reason for refusal of the
planning application was as follows:
1. The proposed extension, by reason of its position, bulk and full width nature,
would harm the special architectural and historic interest and heritage
significance of this Grade II listed building, would harm the original form and
integrity of the host building and would neither preserve nor enhance the
character or appearance of the conservation area. As such, the proposal fails to
comply with Core Strategy Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CL9 and CL11 and
guidance contained within the NPPF.
The reason for refusal of the listed building consent application was as follows:
1. The proposed extension, by reason of its position, bulk and full width nature,
would harm the special architectural and historic interest and heritage
significance of this Grade II listed building and would harm the original form and
integrity of the host building. As such, the proposal fails to comply with Core
Strategy Policy CL4 and guidance contained within the NPPF.
Appellant’s Case
The appellant states that the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the
listed building, setting of the listed building, conservation area or the local streetscene
and would rationalise the group for the specific benefit of the heritage asset. The
appellant concludes that the proposal would represent an enhancement of the character
of the area and that at worst, would preserve the existing situation. Reference is made to
the informality of the rear of this terrace, which the appellant concludes is a significant
contributor to the character of the area.
In supporting this statement, the appellant makes reference to the substantial amount of
change to the listed building in recent times. It is contested that it cannot therefore be
claimed that the integrity or fabric of the heritage asset has not been compromised. The
appellant therefore concludes that the works would not have a detrimental impact on the
integrity of the listed building and that the appeal proposal would not have an adverse
impact on the listed building and would preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the conservation area.
The appellant concludes that the proposed development accords with the provisions of
the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy including the Royal
Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Core Strategy and that planning permission and listed
building consent should be granted.
The Council’s Case and comments on the appellant case
The main issues for consideration in this appeal relate to the impact of the proposal
upon the special architectural and historic interest and heritage significance of the
adjoining Grade II listed building and the character and appearance of the surrounding
conservation area when seen from views from surrounding residential properties.
The Local Planning Authority considers that its case, with regard to these issues, has
been explained within the officer’s delegated report (copy attached as Appendix A)
dated 9th February 2015. The considerations which are relevant to the proposal are
explicit and why the proposal is therefore contrary to policy is discussed within the
attached report. However, the following additional comments are made in response to
the appellant’s statement and grounds for appeal.
The appeal site was added to the statutory list in 1969. The list entry for 26, 27 and 28
Chesham Place states: 'Early C19. Unified composition; 4-storey, stucco faced. Each
house 3 windows, middle one with Creek Doric porch and pilaster order to first and
second floors, with pediment above attic. No 26 much altered in detail. Composition
closes vista from Belgrave Square. Cast iron area.railings.'
Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that 'When considering the impact of a proposed
development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be
given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight
should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the
heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable,
any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.' Paragraph 134
continues that 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to
the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.'
The appeal site has been heavily extended at the rear. Most recently, an infill extension
to the rear at second floor level was allowed at appeal in May 2014 (PP/13/2956 and
LB/13/2957). The Inspector considered that the proposed infill would amount to a
modest enlargement to a building of this scale, that it would unify the second floor rear
extension and that it 'would not impinge upon an appreciation of the historic floors
above'.
In the decision, the Inspector acknowledged that the special significance of the building
derives from its age, architectural detailing and materials, together with its contribution to
the composition of this group of listed buildings and its prominence within the Hans
Town Conservation Area. Despite the statement in the appellant's commentary within
the 'Addendum to Heritage Advice' that 'the frontage is well preserved', the Inspector
also acknowledged that the front main facade was re-faced in the 1920's in the style of a
Florentine Palace and that 'it is now considered to be of interest in its own right.'
The proposed additional full width extension at third and fourth floor level would appear
unsightly and would not represent a modest enlargement. With regard to the rear
elevation, the Donald Insall submission which supported the application acknowledged
that 'Only at third and fourth floor levels can we be confident that much original material
remains, with exposed brickwork and historic openings evident at both floors.' Although
altered to a limited degree, this last remaining section of original rear main facade
exhibits a generally balanced, unassuming, simple and robust appearance. This
treatment is characteristic for a secondary facade of a building of this type, style and
period and contributes to the architectural significance of this property. As stated above,
the property has already been heavily extended to the rear. The significance of this
remnant of original rear main wall is therefore increased as it is the only section of
facade which reflects the original scale, more informal appearance, form, footprint and
fabric on the rear. As such, it also provides an important counterpoint to and visual relief
from the overly bulky and dominant extensions below. As has been noted, the front main
facade was re-faced in the 1920's and the remaining section of original rear facade at
third and fourth floor level is therefore the only remaining section of exposed main wall
on the building as a whole.
The proposed full-width extension would rise to the rear main parapet. It would therefore
impinge on the historic floors above second floor level and would completely obscure
this final important remnant of original facade that remains. In this manner, it would harm
the original form and integrity of the host building. In addition, the proposed two-storey
full width extension in this raised and exposed position at third and fourth floor levels
would significantly compound the visual dominance, excessive bulk and monolithic
appearance of the existing unsympathetic extensions which already blight the rear of
this property. Furthermore, the stepped profile and new full-width parapet between the
third and fourth floor level, coupled with the uniform bands of fenestration, would result
in an uncharacteristic horizontal and formal emphasis. Such a treatment would be at
odds with the original unassuming character and vertical emphasis of the rear main
facade. The disjointed profile, incorporating a prominent set back at fourth floor level,
would appear incongruous in this uncharacteristic position and would exacerbate the
evident bulk of the extensions as a whole. Such detailing would heighten the significant
harmful impact of this overly bulky and dominant extension.
For the reasons set out in the delegated report and expanded on here, the Council
maintains the view that the proposal would harm the special architectural and historic
interest and setting of this Listed Building and would neither preserve nor enhance the
character or appearance of the existing building or the wider Hans Town Conservation
Area. It is considered that there is insufficient public benefit to overcome this harmful
impact.
Conclusion
It is the Council’s opinion that there is no material justification in this case for making
decisions which would conflict with the policy of the development plan, as outlined. The
appeal proposed is considered unacceptable for the reasons outlined in the Council’s
delegated report and as expanded on in the reasoning in this letter. It is therefore
respectfully requested that the appeal is dismissed.
If the Inspector is minded to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, it is
considered appropriate that the following conditions be attached to the planning
permission:
1. Time Limit
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 P_3 001, P_3 105, P_3 106, P_3 107, P_3 110,
P_3 121, P_3 206, P_3 207 Rev. A, P_3 208 Rev. A, P_3 210 Rev. A, P_3 221 Rev. A,
P_3 100
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 or enhance the appearance of the building and/or 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.
It is considered appropriate that the following conditions form part of the listed building
consent:
1. Time Limit
The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years
from the date of this Consent.
Reason - As required by Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act, 1990, to avoid the accumulation of Consents.
2. Compliance with drawings
The works forming the subject of this consent shall not be carried out except in
complete accordance with the details shown on submitted plans P_3 001, P_3
105, P_3 106, P_3 107, P_3 110, P_3 121, P_3 206, P_3 207 Rev. A, P_3 208
Rev. A, P_3 210 Rev. A, P_3 221 Rev. A, P_3 100 and shall be so maintained.
Reason - In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest and
heritage significance of the building.
3. Work to match retained fabric
All new works and works of making good to the retained fabric, whether internal
or external, shall be finished to match the adjacent work with regard to the
methods used and to colour, material, texture, and profile.
Reason - In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest and
heritage significance of the building and comply with policy CL4 of the Core
Strategy.
4. Submission of details
Detailed drawings showing the design of the new sash windows, including glazing
and method of installation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before the relevant part of the work is begun, and the
works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so
approved and shall thereafter be so maintained
Reason - In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest and
heritage significance of the building and comply with policy CL4 of the Core
Strategy.
Yours faithfully
Lisa Cheung
Assistant Head of Development Management and Conservation
For the Executive Director Planning and Borough Development