!DOCTYPE html> The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea | Planning Search

Planning Search

Back to search results

Property details

Case reference: PP/99/02488
Address: 63 Portland Road, LONDON, W11 4LJ
Ward: Norland
Polling district: 11
Listed Building Grade: N/A
Conservation area: Norland

Applicant details

Applicant's name: Mrs Gail Mayhew,
Applicant company name: Tim Williams,
Contact address: AMD Architects, 159 Mortlake Road, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4AW

Proposal details

Application type: PP (Planning permission)
Proposed development Alterations to roof to form a terrace, stair enclosure, window alterations at second floor level and formation of French doors at lower ground level.
Date received: 15 Nov 1999
Registration date:
(Statutory start date)
09 Dec 1999
Application status: Decided
Target date for decision: 03 Feb 2000

Decision details

This case has not yet been decided.

Decision: Refuse Planning Permission/Consent
Decision date: 29 Nov 2000
Conditions and reasons:

1)

The proposed alteration of the valley roof form is considered to be unacceptable in that it would be an architecturally unsympathetic alteration that would harm the external appearance of this building and harm the overall character of the roofscape in this terrace. The proposal would be harmful to the external appearance of this building, the architectural balance of the terrace to which this property belongs, and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As a consequence this proposal is contrary to policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan, most notably CD38, CD39, CD52 and CD53.

2)

The proposed stair enclosure, by reason of its design, size and scale would be an overly prominent, visually obtrusive and architecturally unsympathetic addition that would harm the external appearance of this building and the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Thus the proposal is contrary to policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan, most notably CD38, CD39, CD52 and CD53.

3)

The enlargement of the rear window at rear second floor level would be an architecturally unsympathetic alteration, that would be out of scale and character with the pattern of fenestration along these rear elevations. The proposed alteration would harm the external appearance of this building and would fail to preserve the character of the Conservation Area and as a consequence is contrary to policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan, most notably CD44, CD52 and CD53.

Informatives:

1)

Relevant Policies Used
You are advised that a number of relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan were used in the determination of this case, in particular, Policies CD28, CD30, CD34, CD38, CD39, CD40, CD44, CD52 and CD53. (I51)

Committee details

Decision by: MEP (Members' Panel).
Date:TBC

Appeal details

This case has not been appealed.

Planning Inspectorate reference number:
Appeal received:
Appeal type:
Appeal procedure:
Appeal start date:
Deadline for comments to be received by the Planning Inspectorate:
Appeal decision:
Appeal decision date:

Contact details

Planning case officer:
Planning team: North
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 020 7361 3012

Comment on this application

The consultation period for this application has ended.

Documents related to case PP/99/02488