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 (iii) The plan of the proposed first floor, presumably in response to objections to the withdrawn first application earlier in the year, shows frosted/prismatic glass along a section of the Pottery Lane frontage but none on the large rounded corners of the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