Flat 1
12A Penzance Place
London W11 4PA
Mr Fergal O'Donnell
Senior Planning Officer
Planning and Borough Development
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
The Town Hall
Hornton Street
London W8 7NX
08 August 2014
Dear Sir
Application PP/14/04425
82 Princedale Road London W11 4 NL
Single Story Roof Extension and Basement
As the owner of the flat directly opposite the proposed development and facing onto
Penzance Place, I wish, on the following grounds, to lodge my objection to the proposed
addition of a first story structure onto the existing ground floor of the building on the
corner of Penzance Place and Pottery Lane, and indeed to the whole application.
1. Loss of Privacy
The walls of the proposed structure will be glass fronted (“a curved glass façade”)
offering views into our property constituting a great invasion of privacy.
I believe this would similarly apply with regard to the flats around us in the same
property as ours.
(i)
The proposed commercial use of the additional first floor premises would probably
result in more occupants during the day than would be the case if the proposed
addition were in residential occupation (which would have been bad enough),
and with employees walking round and gazing out the windows from time to
time, this would constitute a most considerable invasion of our privacy.
(ii)
I may add that working habits have changed for many in current times and it would
not be unusual for the business occupants to work long hours either from early in
the morning or until later in the evenings or even on Saturdays, offering the
prospect of further invasion of privacy outside what in former times may have
been normal office hours.
(iii) The plan of the proposed first floor, presumably in response to objections to the
withdrawn first application earlier in the year, shows frosted/prismatic glass
along a section of the Pottery Lane frontage but none on the large rounded
corners of the glass structure and none at all along the Penzance Place frontage,
all leaving the potential for great invasion of the our flat and the flats around us.
(iv)
There is no indication whether the insertion of windows is being applied for or
contemplated, although windows seem to be inserted in the proposed first floor
plan on the Penzance Place frontage.
If windows were permitted, this would, despite the use of frosted glass, negate
the whole purpose of having frosted glass, as overlooking and the same invasions
of privacy would continue through open windows.
(v)
The Design and Access Statement (“the Statement”) states that the “the new
commercial unit will have a small external terrace on the first floor”.
The existence, location and size of the terrace are not specifically indicated in the
proposed plans, nor the place of entry onto the terrace.
Other than as indicated below, I am therefore totally unable to offer any further
comment on the proposed terrace.
There is also no mention in the Statement of the construction of a parapet on the
Pottery Lane frontage of the building.
However, the Pottery Lane elevation plan shows planting either in a new wall or
plant boxes along the entire frontage.
Whether the terrace is located above the covered light well or where plants are
indicated on the first floor plan, it would seem the movement of personnel
around the entire frontage of the structure between the parapet walls/new
plantings is contemplated, providing a constant and very serious potential for
overlooking and invasion of privacy and noise disturbance.
(vi)
I should emphasize that, being a single story structure, there has never previously
been any overlooking of my property (nor of the properties opposite in Pottery
Lane) from the property on which a first floor addition is now sought.
One would respectfully expect existing residential amenities, including the rights
to privacy and protection from overlooking, to be maintained and protected and
particularly so vis-à-vis any new commercial development in our essentially
residential area.
(viii) As to the above perhaps I may point out that:
(a) “Current expectations are for better standards of light and privacy than in the
past and the historic pattern of development has permitted. The Council
considers that proposals for new residential and non-residential development
should ensure a reasonable standard of visual privacy………taking into account
the amenity conditions of the surrounding area” (Core Strategy 34.3.46).
“With regard to privacy, the Council will not be seeking to ensure that
development proposals meet any particular minimum or maximum standard.
Where proposals, including for extensions to existing buildings, affect the privacy
of adjoining property, the extent to which they involve a significant and
unreasonable worsening of overlooking to those properties will be assessed,
taking into account the prevailing general standard of privacy in that local
environment and the area that is affected” (Core Strategy 34.3.48).
As to this, the properties across the road in Penzance Place and Pottery Lane,
being, it would seem, “the area affected”, at present enjoy complete privacy
from the structure on which it is sought to erect a first story and it is accordingly
submitted that the proposed glass-fronted structure would result in a “significant
and unreasonable worsening of overlooking” of the properties affected (including
my property).
(b) “The Council will require new buildings, extensions and modifications….to
achieve high standards of amenity.
To deliver this the Council will:
b. require reasonable visual privacy for occupants of nearby buildings” (Core
Strategy CL5).
I wish to also object to the first floor construction, and indeed to the whole application, on
the grounds appearing below, but if the Council were minded at all to grant consent to the
proposed first floor, I would ask that that there be conditions that:
(a) Frosted glass be installed along all the sides of the structure;
(b) No windows be installed anywhere along the sides of the structure, including
at any time in the future;
(c) To avoid overlooking, there be no access, except for necessary repairs, to any
area outside the glass structure, thereby precluding the construction of a roof
terrace or the cultivation of plants on the first floor.
2. Source of Light
Given modern changed working habits with longer hours in the evenings
referred to in paragraph 1 (ii) and bearing in mind also the darker afternoons
of winter, the proposed glass structure internally illuminated at such times, by
providing a most disturbing constant source of light, holds out the prospect of
being a great nuisance to the neighbours with a resultant considerable loss of
amenity.
On this ground too it is submitted that the application to erect a glass first
floor addition should be refused.
3. Extra Commercial Space/No Need for a First Floor Addition
(i)
The applicant states that it is retaining “the same amount of commercial
space but reinstates this over the proposed basement and existing ground
floor at the rear of the site” (Statement page 1).
(ii)
The present combined commercial areas of the Princedale Road ground and
basement premises are 106 square metres and the area of the Pottery Lane
ground floor premises is 100 square metres (Existing Ground Floor and
Basement Plans).
(iii)
The proposed basement commercial area is 102 square metres (Proposed
Lower Ground Floor Plan) – this of course duplicates the present area of the
ground floor above.
(iv)
The proposed new ground floor commercial area is only 67 square metres,
the balance, 33 square metres, being taken up by the relatively massive light
well proposed to lead light to the new lower ground floor (Proposed Ground
Floor Plan).
(v)
In short, in the absence of the light well the commercial area on the ground
floor together with that proposed in the new basement, would equal the
present commercial area being given over for a new residential unit in the
Princedale Road property.
(vi)
Given the large problems being created for neighbours with regard to
overlooking and privacy and the serious planning concerns voiced below
pursuant to the glass structure proposal, and having regard to the benefit of
additional light to be obtained through the proposed enlarged and extra
windows and light wells (should the Council be minded to approve these),
the applicant should make use of the full areas of the ground floor and
proposed basement and make do with such artificial light, if any, as may
then be needed.
One assumes that the applicant has been using some artificial light, in any
event, in the existing Portland Road basement.
As the applicant points out, “the deeper space in the basement floor is
utilized” for “toilet, kitchen area and general store” (Statement page 9), for
the use of which natural light is clearly not critical.
The above submission would circumvent any need for a first floor addition
to the existing building and on this ground too, the application for a first
floor addition should respectfully be refused (if the Council is minded to
approve the application at all).
4. Additional Planning Considerations/Planning Policies
It is strongly pointed out that the building corner Penzance Place and Pottery Lane
forms part of a beautiful row of Victorian properties on either side of Penzance
Place and faces a similar row of, albeit smaller, attractive period properties
opposite in Pottery Lane.
These properties all tend to be maintained in prime condition by the owners.
This prized conservation area indeed falls within the Norland Neighbourhood Plan.
As Pottery Lane itself tends to be a narrow minor mews-type road where it is more
removed from Penzance Place, with no buildings similar to those in Penzance Place,
it is submitted that such extensions as exist to the rear of buildings in Pottery Lane
should be totally disregarded and regard had solely to the townscape, nature and
quality of buildings, skyline etc in Penzance Place and directly opposite, in Pottery
Lane.
Having regard to these properties, it is submitted that the proposed first floor
addition is not only unnecessary (see above) but would:
(i)
Have an adverse effect upon the character of buildings in the streets and on
the skyline (Extant UDP Policies 4.4.2);
(ii)
Rise considerably above the original main eaves or parapet (and would
accordingly be extremely visible, including at a distance) (UDP CD 47 (c);
Norland Neighbourhood Plan Policy N2 (b) and (c));
(iii)
Result in a significant increase of overlooking of neighbouring properties
(UDP CD 47 (h));
(iv)
Result in the architectural symmetry of the terrace being impaired (CD 49
(a));
(v)
Not respect the existing context, character and appearance of buildings in
the immediate area (Core Strategy CL1 (a), (e));
(vi)
Be out of keeping with the character of the original building and group of
buildings in Penzance Place (CL2 (e));
(vii)
Not provide continued reasonable privacy for occupants of nearby buildings
and would have a significant impact by reason of increased traffic and noise
in Pottery Lane and Penzance Place (CL5 (b) and (d));
(viii)
Not complement or enhance the existing character and take account of the
context of the street scene but on the contrary, would detract greatly from
these criteria (Norland Policy N1).
Having regard to the above policy considerations it is submitted that the proposed glass
roof extension would be extremely visible, totally out of character having regard to the
neighbouring buildings, would be a blot on the skyline and, with respect, a general
eyesore in our particular street.
Accordingly, on this ground too, it is submitted that the application for the glass roof
extension should be refused.
5. Traffic and Noise
At present, the commercial activities in the two structures are spread between each,
with two entrances, one in Princedale Road, the other in Penzance Place.
The concentration of all the commercial activities in the one building corner Pottery Lane
and Penzance Place with only one entrance in Penzance Place will increase the traffic in
our area, with attendant noise and pressure on the surrounding narrow roads and
already limited parking facilities.
It should respectfully be borne in mind that ours is an essentially residential area,
charming in character and quiet, and the residential nature and present amenities of our
neighbourhood really require to be protected.
Having regard to:
(i)
the prospect of traffic congestion in the surrounding streets,
(ii)
pressure on the limited available parking facilities, and
(iii) the prospect of increased noise flowing from commercial use of the premises and
the noise causing a disturbance to the occupants of neighbouring properties
potentially transmitted through the proposed opening windows (which are also
to be larger and increased in number),
it is submitted that the application should be refused in its entirety.
6. Application for Planning Permission and for Relevant Demolition…..
Under numbered section 9 the applicant states in response to the question “Why is it
necessary to demolish all or part of the building(s) and/or structure(s)” that “Internal
demolition, as well as demolition of the existing roof of the rear building, will be necessary
for the continual (sic) viability of a portion of the building to remain as a commercial
premise (sic)”.
The non-commercial viability of the premises in their existing state does not appear to be
substantiated anywhere in the application and in the absence of any such substantiation it
is submitted that it is difficult to accept that the premises cannot be used for commercial
purposes, as they are at present, without demolition of the roof.
It may well be that this is, in any event, not a planning criterion in considering the
application and consenting to the demolition.
7. Use of Premises
The Design and Access Statement under “Site” (page 2) refers to the property having “a
large semi-industrial rear extension”, that (page 3) it was “likely added for light industrial
use” and similarly on the final page.
The proposed use should please be clarified as if it is intended to pursue a change of use
in respect of the premises, this, with the prospect of noise generated by industrial
activities, would, as matters stand, be unacceptable to me (and quite likely to all
neighbours).
It is trusted that the contents of this letter will receive your kind and sympathetic
consideration.
Yours faithfully
Mr & Mrs Pollen