Appeal 6001343

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of a basement under the footprint of the building with lightwells; demolition of single-storey side extension/ garage and rear conservatory at lower ground level and construction of a (smaller) single-storey side extension; insertion of rooflight in rear roof slope; construction of cycle racks and a replacement bin store in the front garden area; alterations to elevations and construction of new front boundary wall and railings at [site address] , Kensington and Chelsea, London [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04318, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have amended the description of development in the banner heading to that used on the decision notice. This is a more accurate description of the proposed development than that given on the application form and ensures that it accurately captures the scope of the proposal.

The appellant has provided a copy of an Addendum report by the Director, Planning and Place, with regard to Planning Committee dated 09 October 2025. [name] N116 relates to the appeal premises (No 44). It is likely that this document would have been circulated to Committee Members prior to them considering the proposal and in the public domain prior to the Council's determination of the planning application. I am satisfied that accepting this would not cause procedural unfairness to interested parties.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would constitute a material change of use; • the effect of the proposal on housing mix, having regard to relevant development plan policies; • whether proposed Flats 2 and 3 would be independent dwellings; • whether future occupiers would be likely to experience low-quality and substandard living conditions; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the De Vere Conservation Area (the CA).

I am mindful that the Members considered the change of use of the appeal site at [site address] (No 44) to be material, and one which required planning permission. However, the appellant’s planning application did not seek a change of use. The description of development sought on the planning application was for, amongst other matters, internal and external alterations. Whilst the Council, upon receipt of the planning application, changed the description of the development, those changes did not include a material change of use. The Council then validated the proposal and consulted upon it. I have nothing before me which demonstrates that the Council considered the proposed development would constitute a material change of use.

Furthermore, the Council issued a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) CL/22/00707 for a proposed use/development in 2022. Plans associated with the LDC1 show the internal reconfiguration of No 44, with the proposed development retaining three separate units which comprise two single aspect 1-bed units within the lower ground floor, each measuring approximately 39 sqm, and one larger unit measuring approximately 563 sqm spread across the lower ground, ground, first and second floors. The issuing of the LDC demonstrates that the Council took the view that the proposed works would not result in a material change of use that would otherwise require planning permission.

Given that the proposed development would result in a similar number and size of units as the LDC, I consider that it would not constitute a material change of use.

No 44 comprises a semi-detached dwelling, currently containing three self-contained units over four floors. Flat 1 is on the lower ground and ground floors, and two 2-bed flats (Flat 2 and Flat 3) are on the first and second floors respectively.

Policy HO1 of the Council’s New Local Plan Review 2024 (Local Plan) aims to, amongst other matters, protect existing market residential homes and floorspace across the borough by not allowing the amalgamation of existing self-contained (Class C3) homes.

Local Plan Policy HO4 requires, amongst other matters, development to include a mix and size of homes to reflect the varying local needs of the borough, taking into 1 PLAN 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 account the characteristics of the site, and current evidence in relation to housing need.

The Council has drawn my attention to its Local Housing Needs Assessment (September 2022), which it contends demonstrates a growing demand for smaller homes in particular, 2-bed 4-person homes (40%) compared to larger 4+ bed homes (5%), due to a projected decline in households with children and a growth in smaller adult households over the plan period. It is contended that the current configuration meets this need.

The proposed development would involve the amalgamation of floorspace associated with Flats 2 and 3 to create one larger unit, which the Council calls ‘super prime’. This larger unit would contain a swimming pool room, laundry room, sauna and gym within the newly created basement with living accommodation at the lower ground, ground, first, second and attic floor, and would comprise a 5-bed 8/10-person unit, measuring approximately 584 sqm. It would also create two smaller units (proposed Flats 2 and 3) at the lower ground floor, each comprising 1- bed 1-person unit and measuring approximately 43 sqm and 48 sqm respectively.

I acknowledge that the new internal arrangement would reflect the needs of the appellant, and that his two sons, one of whom is disabled, would occupy the smaller 1-bed units while he himself would reside in the larger unit. However, the proposal would nevertheless amalgamate floor space currently associated with existing Flats 2 and 3 into Flat 1, which is contrary to the aims of Local Plan Policy HO1.

Whilst the proposal would provide a mix of types of housing, the resultant mix would not reflect the pressing local need identified by the Council. From the evidence before me, which takes into account current evidence in relation to housing need and without any compelling evidence to the contrary, the proposal would conflict with the aims of Local Plan Policy HO4.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would not constitute an appropriate housing mix. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to Local Plan Policies HO1 and HO4.

The decision notice refers to Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021, but this Policy relates to housing quality and standards. Given that this main issue relates to housing mix, this policy is not directly applicable.

The decision notice also refers to Local Plan Policy HO2. This relates to the creation of new homes on small sites. Given that the main issue relates to housing mix, this policy is not directly applicable.

From my observations, the primary access to each unit is currently via a stepped arrangement and the main door within the front elevation. This access within the proposed layout would be solely for the larger unit, and access to the proposed lower ground units would be via a set of external steps or a platform lift.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by both the Council and the interested parties with regard to the smaller proposed units and the degree of independence of future occupiers. However, plans show that all proposed units would be separate and would have its own front door accessed independently from the others. Whilst the access to these proposed units would be different to that which currently exists, the proposed access arrangement would not be dissimilar to many other lower-ground units across the city.

With regard to the familial connection, even if the appellant’s sons live in the smaller proposed units, I have nothing before me to demonstrate that the proposed flats would not provide independent accommodation.

Whilst proposed Flats 2 and 3 would be significantly smaller than the current arrangement, each would have its own kitchen, sitting room and bedroom and therefore be self-contained. Furthermore, even if future occupants were able to utilise the pool and gym associated with Unit 1, I am satisfied that the three units would be separate. Therefore, from the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the units would be independent.

Local Plan Policies HO1, HO2, HO4 and Policy D6 of the London Plan have been referred by the Council in relation to the above main issues. However, these relate to the delivery and protection of homes and seek, amongst other matters, to resist very large homes by benchmarking floorspace against nationally described housing standards (criterion A. 7); protect existing market housing and floorspace by not allowing the amalgamation of existing self-contained homes (criterion B), and ensure housing meets adequate size and standards. Given my findings on the main issues of material change of use and independent units, these policies are not applicable.

There are currently three self-contained units over four floors within No 44. The Council describes these as Flat 1 - 5 bed 7 person unit over the lower ground and ground floor, measuring approximately 326 sqm, Flat 2 – 2 bed 4 person at the first floor, measuring approximately 132 sqm; and Flat 3 - 2.5 bed 3 person at the second floor, measuring approximately 131 sqm. The Council considers the current units to be of good quality, dual aspect and having adequate levels of natural light and ventilation. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

The Council contends that the proposed units would be low quality and substandard. I am mindful that Local Plan Policy HO1 criterion A.7 seeks to restrict very large homes by benchmarking floorspace against the National Described Housing Standard (NDSS) and that the NDSS sets out examples of minimum [name] (GIA) based on typical combinations of internal space within new dwellings. Policy D6 of the London Plan also prescribes, amongst other matters, minimum GIA. This is reflective of the NDSS, which is also reflected in Local Plan Policy HO4.

Supporting text to Local Plan Policy HO4 states, amongst other things, that developments are encouraged to exceed the standards but not so significantly as to create very large homes. However, even if the proposed Flat 1 would be significantly larger than the minimum GIA set out in the NDSS, the Council has not substantiated its view of how this unit would constitute low-quality or substandard accommodation for its intended occupants.

With regard to proposed Flats 2 and 3, I acknowledge that these would be significantly smaller, and both would be located within the lower ground floor. However, both flats would meet the minimum GIA for a 1-bed 1-person dwelling set out in the NDSS. Given this, I am satisfied that the living conditions of future occupiers would not be either low-quality or substandard.

I also acknowledge that proposed Flats 2 and 3 would be single aspect, and that future occupants of proposed Flat 2 would overlook a lightwell, and therefore the outlook from proposed Flat 2 would be more restricted than that of proposed Flat 3. However, the appellant contends that all proposed units would have adequate natural light and ventilation, and I have nothing before me to demonstrate that the proposed layout would result in inadequate passive ventilation, daylight or privacy for future occupiers, or that it would result in overheating of the units2. Moreover, plans submitted for the LDC3 shows that one flat within the lower ground would also have similar outlook to that shown on submitted plans. I am not persuaded that the living conditions of future occupiers would be either low-quality or substandard.

Policy D6 of the London Plan also seeks to ensure that dwellings have private outside space, and [name] 9) states that a minimum of 5 sqm of private outdoor space should be provided for 1-2 person dwellings.

Submitted plans show that access to the rear garden can be gained by occupants of proposed Flats 1 and 3, directly from the main rear elevation. Plans also show that future occupants of proposed Flat 2 would have no access to any private outdoor space. This is contrary to the aims of London Plan Policy D6. Notwithstanding this, I saw no obvious direct access within the current arrangement to the rear garden from Flat 2 or 3. Whilst the occupants of Flat 2 currently have access to a private balcony, submitted plans show that the occupants of Flat 3 have no external outdoor space. Therefore, even if the rear garden would be retained by the occupants of the proposed larger unit, submitted plans show this area would be communal and accessible by future occupants of proposed Flats 1 and 3. Access to external outdoor space in the proposal would therefore be similar to that currently, whereby one flat has no access. Furthermore, plans submitted for the LDC4 show that one flat within the lower ground would have no access to external space. This lends weight to my view that even if one unit has no external outdoor space, I am not persuaded that the living conditions of future occupiers would be either low-quality or substandard.

I therefore conclude that in this circumstance, the proposed reconfiguration of No 44 would provide good standards of accommodation for future occupants. As such, there would be no conflict with Local Plan Policy HO1 or Policy D6 of the London Plan. These collectively seek to ensure high levels of internal and external amenity for future occupiers.

The decision notice mentions Local Plan Policy HO2, but this relates to small sites and the delivery of new homes. Given that this main issue relates to living conditions, this policy is not directly applicable.

The appeal premises is a four-storey semi-detached building located within the [name] character area (VE) of the CA. It is mainly rendered to the front elevation with brick banding across the upper floor and exposed brick spandrels beneath the majority of windows to the front elevation. The side wing is setback 2 London Plan Policy D6 criterion C and D 3 PLAN 100 4 PLAN 100 from the front elevation. Views of this side wing were limited when viewed from [address].

The main external front elevations of properties on [address], including the adjoining property (No 42), are constructed predominantly from render. Whilst some mainly rendered properties have bricks visible from the street, these tended to feature largely on the flank elevations. Buildings constructed predominantly from brick as the main outward-facing material were few in number and interspersed along the street.

The appellant contends that No 44 was originally designed with No 42 as a pair of villas marking the left-hand entrance to [address], and that whilst not identical, they are similar in form, materials, and detail. It is also asserted by the appellant that the property was significantly extended and altered in the early 20th century, including the removal and replacement of the sash windows with metal casement frames with leaded lights, the introduction of brick panels below the windows, the addition of a new door surround, and a large extension to the south with a mansard roof. From the evidence before me and observations on site, I have no reason to take a different view.

The De Verre CA Appraisal 2016 (CAA) describes [address] as a street with the greatest variety of house types, many of which have been greatly altered over time and originally mainly made up of pairs of semi-detached villas. The CAA identifies No 44 and its immediate neighbours as positive features5 in the CA. The significance of this part of the CA comprises largely well-established and attractive residential buildings. The consistency in materials, particularly in pairs of semi-detached properties or terraces, is the defining feature, and this makes a positive contribution to the CA.

However, it is the direct relationship that No 44 has with No 42, which is a positive feature within the CA. Given the contrasting materials to the front elevation of No 44, compared to that of No 42 and others in the immediate vicinity, No 44 in isolation only broadly makes a positive contribution to the CA.

The submitted plans show, amongst other things, that the brick spandrel panels and brick banding would be rendered and the mix of Crittall and metal windows would be replaced with timber sash casements.

The Council have drawn my attention to the previous appeal6 at No 44, which it considers should be given significant weight. However, the previous appeal related to, amongst other matters, the demolition of No 44 and its replacement with a new four-storey building plus basement and mansard. In the appeal before me, there would be limited demolition, and the main body of No 44 would be retained. The previous appeal is therefore significantly different to that before me, and as such, it is not comparable.

Whilst the arrangement of bricks on the front elevation of No 44 does result in a rather quirky appearance, I consider the panels beneath the window and banding 5 Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea De Vere Conservation Area Appraisal 31 March 2016 p.14. PP/K5600/W/22/3313442 stand out as an anomaly when experienced alongside its adjoining villa and from within the CA. This results from their contrasting colour and material.

I note Historic England’s guidance on steel windows. However, I have not been directed to any adopted policy or part of the CAA which identifies Crittall windows or the brick spandrel panels as key features in the CA. I note that the CAA sets out that original windows and doors make a vital contribution to the area in terms of appearance, integrity and historic character and that the most widespread type of window in the VE is sliding timber-framed sash. From my observations, the insertion of sliding timber-framed sash windows and render across the front elevation would complement not only its attached villa, but also the majority of dwellings within the VE and CA.

The proposed single-storey side extension would remove the current large single-storey extension and conservatory and would have a smaller footprint. This, together with the removal of the dormer window at the upper level and its associated roof, would simplify the building’s front elevation. It would also remove the current garage which projects towards the front and is identified in the CAA as a negative element on [address]. The removal of the garage and a smaller footprint to the side of No 44 would therefore enhance the character and appearance of the building.

The proposed basement would be predominantly beneath No 44, and the additional lightwells at the front and rear would not be readily visible from [address]. Their inclusion would have no harmful effect on either the character or appearance of No 44 or the CA.

Furthermore, there is a variety in the design and scale of both porches and front boundaries along [address]. The proposal would replace the current arched porch and decorative front boundary and ironwork with a classical porch and simple front boundary and railing. The scale, design and palette of materials of these would be similar to those I saw on the adjoining villa (No 42). This similarity would complement not only No 42, but also other dwellings within the VE and CA.

Given that the majority of the current building would be retained as part of the proposed development, even if the proposed design would incorporate pastiche elements, I find that the render and window style would be compatible with the majority of properties on [address] and the CA. Moreover, given its larger footprint and scale when compared to its adjoining villa, No 44 would still retain some variety in its appearance, which is an important characteristic of the CA.

In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

I note that the Council updated its position with regard to the level of harm7 following comments from its Heritage team, and that it now contends that the proposed works to the front elevation would result in harm to the character and appearance of the CA, albeit less than substantial and to the lower end of the scale. 7 [name] N116

I am in no doubt that the proposed external alterations would bring about a visual change to No 44 and this part of the CA. However, such changes would constitute a further evolution to the building. Whilst the Council considers the loss of the inter-war windows and brick panels would diminish the positive contribution of No 44, I find that the proposal and its resultant appearance would not undermine the significance or qualities which are of importance to the CA.

Given the above, the proposed development would result in a neutral effect on the CA and thereby preserve the character and appearance of No 44 and the CA. On this basis, the proposal does not conflict with the expectations of the Act. It follows that there is no requirement for a subsequent assessment of public benefits, as is the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Overall, the proposal would not cause harm to the host property and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Local Plan Policies CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4 and CD13, which collectively seek to ensure that development preserve or enhance the character or appearance and significance of the CA and thereby protect the special architectural or historic interest of the area, and take opportunities to enhance the character and appearance of its setting.

As previously mentioned, an LDC for a proposed use/development was issued for No 44 in 2022. The internal reconfiguration of the current flats within the building can be lawfully undertaken without planning permission. The appellant, therefore, contends that their LDC constitutes a fallback position.

I have seen the plans upon which the Council made its decision. These show three separate units comprising two single aspect 1-bed units within the lower ground floor, each measuring approximately 39 sqm and accessed via an external staircase and a shared access via a lightwell. This would also require future occupants of the smaller units to walk past the kitchen/living room of one unit to enter the building. These plans also show one larger unit measuring approximately 563 sqm spread across the lower ground, ground, first and second floors and accessed via the existing entrance direct from the front elevation. Plans associated with the LDC also show that the resultant housing mix would be equal to the appeal before me.

Prior to the current Local Plan, the 2019 Local Plan allowed amalgamations, with a floorspace cap of 170 sqm. I understand that this policy approach has been updated with the adoption of the Local Plan 2024. Notwithstanding this, the Council has nevertheless issued an LDC which, while not reducing the overall number of units, does permit an internal reconfiguration of No 44, which ultimately alters the current housing mix. Consequently, even if the Council’s policy on amalgamation of units and floorspace across the borough has changed, the fallback position is a material consideration. For significant weight to be afforded to the LDC, there not only needs to be a real possibility of it being carried out, but it would also need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme.

From the information before me, I have no reason to doubt that there is more than a theoretical prospect that if the appeal is dismissed, the appellants might pursue the fallback scheme. Given the described mix of units and the location of the smaller units within the building, the LDC and fallback position, in my mind, would have similar effects to the proposed development with regard to the mix of units. This is a significant consideration in favour of the proposal, which I will return to in

I have taken into account the concerns raised by interested parties with regard to controlling further extensions, particularly to the roof and the installation of external plant or equipment/vents. However, in the case before me, there would be no increase in height or any obvious alteration to the current roof form, or external plant or equipment/vents shown on submitted plans and, as such, conditions to restrict further works would not meet the tests outlined in the Framework. Furthermore, the advice from the leading estate agents does not alter my findings.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. The development plan is the starting point for decision-making, and I must make my decision in accordance with it unless other considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case, the proposal would replace two x 2-bed units with two x 1-bed units and would have an adverse effect on the housing mix, contrary to Local Plan Policies HO1 and HO4, insofar as they seek to ensure a range of housing to meet local needs.

I am satisfied that the development would not result in harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. Whilst the smaller units may be occupied by family members, I have found that they would be separate from the larger unit, and they would be independent.

I have also found that the external works would not cause harm to the host property or the CA. This is neutral in the planning balance. [name] have not identified any other harms, the harm I have identified in terms of housing mix would bring the appeal proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

I have found that the fallback development has a realistic prospect of being implemented were this appeal to fail and would result in the amalgamation and the loss of the two 2 x bed units to create a larger unit and 2 x 1-bed units. As such, it is a material consideration of considerable weight in favour of the appeal proposal. The weight I have attached to it is sufficient to outweigh the harm the appeal proposal would cause to the housing mix within the Council’s area, in particular in meeting the needs of families and avoiding high levels of under-occupancy. As such, it indicates that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

The Council has suggested planning conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed, which I have considered in accordance with the tests for imposing conditions set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the suggested conditions to ensure compliance with the tests.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), a condition specifying the plans (2) is necessary in the interests of certainty. To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents, in respect of air quality, noise and disturbance and in the interests of highway safety, pre-commencement conditions are necessary, which requires the submission and subsequent approval of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (3), [name] (4), an appointed engineer (5) and Site Construction Management Plan (6). To protect the character and appearance of the area, I have also attached a pre-commencement condition which requires the submission and subsequent approval by the Local Planning Authority of tree protection details (11). In accordance with the regulations, the appellant has been consulted on the wording of these conditions and has provided their written agreement.

In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the CA, I have imposed conditions requiring external materials to match the existing with regard to colour, texture and profile (7), and the installation of conservation rooflights (8). I have not imposed the suggested condition, which requires the windows and doors to be a specific material, as materials are shown on approved plans. It would also duplicate condition 2.

In the interests of public health, a condition is necessary to require investigation of any unexpected land contamination (9). To avoid any increased flood risk and to ensure adequate living conditions of future occupiers, I have imposed a condition requiring the basement hereby approved to be fitted with a positively pumped device (10).

To protect the living conditions of future occupiers of proposed Flats 2 and 3, I also attach a condition requiring the submission of a sound insulation scheme with particular regard to the internal lift (14). Whilst broad details of landscaping and hard surfaces are shown on the submitted drawings, specific landscaping details are omitted. I have therefore imposed a condition requiring detailed landscape details, and a condition with regard to maintenance for 5 years. These are necessary to ensure that the development respects the character and appearance of the area (12 and 13).

I have found that the proposal would result in conflict with the development plan. However, for the reasons set out above, the fallback position is a material consideration that outweighs that conflict. Therefore, subject to conditions, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A1-001 Rev. P1 (Location Plan) A1-020 Rev. P1 (Proposed Site Plan) A1-100 Rev. P1 (Permeable Surfaces Plan) A4-000 Rev. P1 (Proposed Basement Plan) A4-010 Rev. P1 (Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan) A4-020 Rev. P1 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan) A4-030 Rev. P1 (Proposed First Floor Plan) A4-040 Rev. P1 (Proposed Second Floor Plan) A4-050 Rev. P2 (Proposed Attic Plan) A4-060 Rev. P1 (Proposed Roof Plan) A4-100 Rev. P1 ([name] - East) A4-110 Rev. P1 ([name] - [address]); A4-120 Rev. P1 ([name]); A4-130 Rev. P1 ([name] - [name]); A4-210 Rev. P1 (Proposed Section A-A); A4-220 Rev. P1 (Proposed Section B-B); A4-300 Rev. P1 ([name] Details); A3-010 Rev. P1 (Lower GF Plan Demolition); A3-020 Rev. P1 (GF Plan Demolition); A3-030 Rev. P1 (First Floor Plan Demolition); A3-040 Rev. P1 (Second Floor Plan Demolition); A3-050 Rev. P1 (Modifications Attic Plan); A3-060 Rev. P1 (Roof Plan - Demolition); A3-100 Rev. P1 (Front/[name] - Demolition); A3-110 Rev. P1 ([address] Elevation - Demolition); A3-120 Rev. P1 ([name] - Demolition); A3-130 Rev. P1 ([name] - Demolition); A3-210 Rev. P1 (Section AA - Demolition); A3-220 Rev. P1 (Section BB - Demolition).

No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement should include: a) routeing of demolition, excavation and construction vehicles, including a response to existing or known projected major building works at other sites in the vicinity and local works in the highway; b) access arrangements to the site; c) the estimated number and type of vehicles per day/week; d) details of any vehicle holding area; e) details of the vehicle call up procedure; f) estimates for the number and type of parking suspensions that will be required; g) details of any diversion or other disruption to the public highway during preparation, demolition, excavation and construction work associated with the development; h) work programme and/or timescale for each phase of preparation, demolition, excavation and construction work associated with the development; i) details of measures to protect pedestrians and other highway users from construction activities on the highway; and j) where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of hoarding, position of nearby trees in the highway or adjacent gardens, pedestrian routes, parking bay suspensions and remaining road width for vehicle movements. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. A one-page summary of the requirements of the approved CTMP shall be affixed to the frontage of the site for the duration of the works at a location where it can be read by members of the public.

No development shall commence until such time as the lead contractor, or the site, is signed to the [name] (CCS) and its published Code of [name], and the details of: (i) the membership, (ii) contact details, (iii) working hours as stipulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and (iv) Certificate of Compliance, are clearly displayed on the site so that they can be easily read by passing members of the public, and shall thereafter be maintained on display throughout the duration of the works forming the subject of this permission.

No development shall commence until: (A) a [name] (MICE) or [name] ([name].E) has been appointed for the duration of building works and their appointment confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority, and (B) the name, and contact details of the person supervising engineering and construction on site for the duration of building works have been confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. In the event that either the [name] or [name] cease to perform that role for whatever reason before the construction works are completed, those works shall cease until a replacement chartered engineer of the afore-described qualification or replacement supervisor has been appointed to supervise their completion and their appointment confirmed in writing to the Local Planning Authority. At no time shall any construction work take place unless an engineer and supervisor are at that time currently appointed and their appointment has been notified to this Authority in accordance with this condition.

No development shall commence until: A) An Appendix A Checklist and Site Construction Management Plan (SCMP) for the development have both been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with its [name], and then B) Copies of the approved Checklist and Plan, and their written approval, have been submitted to the local planning authority to be placed on the property record. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] and SCMP so approved, or in accordance with a subsequent Checklist or SCMP as may be approved under this condition.

All work and work of making good shall be finished to match the existing exterior of the building in respect of materials, colour, texture, and profile.

The rooflight(s) shall be of a traditional conservation type, flush with the roof and slim framed, and shall be retained thereafter.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development [or relevant phase of development] shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the first use of the basement level hereby approved, the basement shall be fitted with a positively pumped device designed to remove sewer water from the building. This positively pumped device shall be regularly maintained at all times in accordance with manufacturer specifications to remain functional and shall be the responsibility of the primary owner of the property.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method statement) in accordance with paragraphs 5.5 and 6.1 of [name] 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved.

Prior to first occupation of any unit hereby approved, details of landscaping, to include all existing trees and shrubs and proposed trees and shrubs (including suitable replacement trees to those permitted to be removed as part of the development) and paths and their surfacing materials, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species

Prior to the first occupation of either Flat 2 or Flat 3 hereby approved, details of a scheme of sound insulation, including details of noise mitigation measures for the internal lift shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme and associated measures shall be designed to prevent unacceptable noise/vibration disturbance to future residents of the two rearranged lower ground floor level flats. The sound insulation works shall be completed before the first occupation and retained thereafter. *** END OF SCHEDULE ***