1)
The proposed extension to the garage and summer room to create enlarged summer room in the rear garden by reason of its unsympathetic design, form, size, scale, visual mass, poor choice of finish materials, layout, excessive footprint and siting would appear obtrusive, visually dominant and incongruous in the rear garden. Consequently, the summerhouse would fail to read as an ancillary structure to the host building and would seriously detract from, and harm the listed heritage asset and its setting. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the special architecture and historic interest of the listed building and group of buildings and their settings for which no public benefits were provided that would outweigh the identified less than substantial harm, contrary to Policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CL6, and CL11 of the Local Plan 2019.
2)
Due to the lack of essential information, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed extension and associated works to the rear of the existing garage/summer room to the Napier Road side would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the curtilage listed boundary walls and the setting of the listed building, as well as the character and appearance of this part of the Holland Park Conservation Area and the views enjoyed within it. The proposed works would cause 'less than substantial' harm to the heritage asset without sufficient public benefits to outweigh this harm, and would therefore conflict with the aims of policies CL1, CL2, CL3, CL4, CL6 and CL11 of the Local Plan 2019 and NPPF.
3)
The proposed development would result in the damage to, or loss of tree (T4) which is considered to be of a townscape and amenity value, and an arboricultural report submitted with the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed development could be implemented without causing a detrimental impact to tree (T4), contrary to the objectives of Policy CR6 and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Furthermore, as this tree (T4) forms part of the townscape and amenity value in this part of the conservation area, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CL1, CL3 and CL11 of the Local Plan 2019.