Appeal 3348946
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
6 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the alteration of rear first floor window from sash window to French door; installation of metal balustrade over rear bay at first floor level; repainting of external windows and doors throughout from white to black.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/24/02559 for the alteration of rear first floor window from sash window to French door; installation of metal balustrade over rear bay at first floor level; repainting of external windows and doors throughout from white to black at [site address] granted on 11 June 2024 by Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is varied by deleting condition 3 and substituting it for the following condition:
External windows and doors shall be timber framed and painted, with the windows being double hung, black painted, sliding sashes, and so maintained.
Section 03
[name]
Since the planning permission was granted by the Council, the New Local Plan Review has been adopted as the development plan for the borough. Policies CD1 and CD2 of the New Local Plan Review have superseded policies CL1 and CL2 of the Local Plan 2019. I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of varying or removing the condition on the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (“the CA”).
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a four-storey, semi-detached Victorian villa built in the 1840s. The CA covers a large area that was originally developed on a speculative basis by several different architects, developers, and builders with a spacious urban form owing to the communal gardens that create green space between the built form. The concentric crescents, terraces, and communal gardens of the estate fan out from the summit following the contour lines of [address]. The layout and architecture of the housing built, allied with the communal gardens and the use of materials, contribute to the significance of the CA.
The Ladbroke Conservation Area Appraisal (the Appraisal) identifies the appeal property as a positive contributor to the historic and architectural character and appearance of the CA. The lower and ground floor parts of the property’s elevations are finished in painted plaster, with the first and second floor levels finished in brick. The windows are timber, white-painted sash windows.
The Appraisal confirms that timber sash windows with delicate glazing bars, sometimes with crown or cylinder glass, are key features of the [name]. It adds that houses built in the 1830s and 40s, particularly the villa pairs and triplets, may have originally had their multi-paned windows painted black and that this colour continues to be used in some such houses in the CA. The Appraisal explains that houses built after this time, and certainly after the 1850s, would have always had their windows painted white.
While the appellant proposes to remove the disputed condition in its entirety, this would enable those windows to be changed to any material and style. That could result in the loss of the traditional original style of window that characterises the CA. Such a change would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the CA.
However, the Appraisal encourages the reinstatement of sympathetic windows that would enhance parts of the CA where this loss has occurred. Given the use of black paint for windows in properties built in the 1840s, the use of black paint here would reflect and reinstate the historic character of the CA and thus its significance. The use of black paint can be found on numerous nearby properties that were built in the same period as the appeal property. As such, the proposed use of black paint would have a neutral effect on the CA as it would preserve its character and appearance.
For the reasons set out above, removing the condition would not be appropriate, as it is necessary to avoid a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the CA, but by varying its terms to enable black paint to require the use of black paint would preserve its character and appearance. Hence, I conclude that varying the condition to this effect would satisfy the six tests for the imposition of planning conditions and accord with Policies CD1 and CD2 of the New Local Plan Review. These policies, among other things, require development to respect existing context, character, and appearance, including historic characteristics, and to take opportunities to improve the local area.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed development would accord with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.
For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition and substituting it for another.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 245No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 December 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 December 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348946
- Application reference
- PP/24/02559
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
- Planning authority code
- E09000020
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 4. Grant planning permission for the development subject to conditions to which you object
- Appeal reason
- Appeal Against Conditions
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Other
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 26 July 2024
- Valid date
- 1 August 2024
- Start date
- 17 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 3 December 2024
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 61006
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21