Appeal 6001948

The appeal is dismissed.

In my banner heading I have used the company name as it appears on the application form. During the appeal process, the appellant has provided evidence that the company name was changed from SKA Un Limited to Shahi Realty Ltd, on 8th April 2026.

In determining this appeal I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The appellant submitted a signed [name] (UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The UU relates to the proposed two new residential units, restricting them to ‘parking permit free’ only. The UU is a matter I return to later in my decision.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including Pembridge Conservation Area; and ii) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook, light and privacy.

The site lies within Pembridge Conservation Area (CA), which is significant for its attractive and characterful streets of late Victorian and Georgian date, including [address]. The mews were originally developed as stabling and living quarters, which were subsequently converted to dwellings after the First World War1, and more recent development has been integrated into their spaces. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the CA is associated with the historic and architectural interest of the mews, and its backland location set within a quadrant of larger terraces.

[address] West comprises modest, terraced mews houses, fronting a narrow lane. The mews houses range from the 1860’s to late 20th century, such that their architectural and historic interest is varied2. Close to the entry to the appeal site, only those on the southern side were originally designed as working mews. The terraces on the opposite side and around the corner are more obviously designed as dwellings and are recent development. There is variety in the scale of buildings, however, overall there is a strong cohesion within the street scene, due to the building lines of the terraces directly fronting the lane, and the general form and appearance of the terraces.

The appeal site marks a transitional position between [address] West and [address]. The latter, lies to the rear of the appeal site. It is a modern development that is more formal in respect of the appearance of the dwellings, and the scale and massing of the buildings is larger compared with the street scene of [address] West. [address] also appears more spacious, in part due to the absence of built form above ground level within much of the appeal site. This townscape dip is also experienced from elevated vantage points within taller surrounding buildings and contributes to a sense of spaciousness in a broadly central location within the quadrant.

The appeal site includes a continuation of the traditional mews terrace on its southern side. Despite its 20th century alterations, and it being visually severed from the wider street scene by the vehicle entrance, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. The garage building and courtyard make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed new build units, would incorporate a third storey, mansard style element. It would be faced with traditional hanging tiles and set back. However, it would have tall, vertical faces and shallow pitched roof slopes, such that it would have a bulky, box-like appearance. Its massing, together with the projecting window features, awkward juxtaposition with the adjacent roof gable, and the abrupt step down to an extensive run of flat roof, would result in an overly dominant and discordant development. It would be unsympathetic to the cohesive qualities of [address] West and would erode the spacious qualities that are experienced from [address], and taller vantage points. Whilst traditional materials are proposed, and even with the proposed footprint and rear amenity space, this would not overcome the aforementioned significant harmful effects.

The adjacent mansard is similar in height with a full height front wall and step down to the neighbouring roof. However, in common with other mansards in the vicinity, and unlike the appeal scheme, it appears grounded as it spans the entire dwelling with a greater extent of roof slope. It is also framed by raised walling to each gable. In this way, it reflects the scale and rhythm of surrounding buildings. 1 Paragraph 3.115, Pembridge Conservation Area Appraisal 2 Appendix 1, Appeal Statement on Heritage Matters, [name].

I have been referred to other examples of new mews development elsewhere3. Each has a contemporary style, but on the basis of the information before me, only [address] is a comprehensive backland development, set within a quadrant, and this does not incorporate a box-like mansard and abrupt steps in height within the development. Accordingly these schemes are not directly comparable. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits and based on the specific site context.

The proposed external appearance of the existing units, the resurfacing of hard surfacing with cobbles, and the contemporary, single-storey element preventing a blank wall view from the street are positive aspects of the scheme that would improve the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also improve connectivity to the wider mews, and would better reveal this part of the CA, including from an important glimpse view through the covered carriageway 4. These factors would have a positive effect on the significance of the CA, however given the scale, massing and design of the new build units, the proposal would still be harmful overall.

Accordingly, I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve the significance of the CA. Given the extent of development in an enclosed area, the harm to the significance of the wider CA would be less than substantial, and at the lower end of the scale. Nonetheless this harm to the designated heritage asset is of considerable importance and weight.

For these reasons there would be conflict with Policies CD1, CD2 and CD15 of the Local Plan5. Together they require a high standard of design in development, which responds positively to its context, including preserving or enhancing conservation areas and views within those areas.

However, Policy CD4 of the Local Plan and paragraph 215 of the Framework require harm to be weighed against public benefits, where less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset would occur. The heritage balance and any relevant conclusions on policy compliance will be carried out later in my decision.

[address] sits significantly forward of the adjoining dwellings within the terrace, and its front elevation is positioned at close quarters with the northern boundary wall of the appeal site. The front windows within no 14 that directly face the appeal site, serve habitable rooms. At ground floor, outlook is towards the tall boundary wall and sky above. At first and second floor level, the outlook is open aspect, including towards the space above the appeal site, and buildings further afield.

As a result of its height, scale and massing, and even with a set back behind the landscaped boundary wall, the proposed massing of the three storey unit, would dominate the view from all of the aforementioned windows within no. 14. This would result in a substantially harmful oppressive and enclosed outlook, in stark contrast to the existing situation experienced by the occupants. This would be exacerbated by a perceived sense of overlooking from the proposed windows by 3 Former Wornington Green Estate; [address]; [address]; [address]. 4 Fig. 5.1 Pembridge Conservation Area Appraisal 5 New Local Plan Review, July 2024, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. way of activity and light emission within those rooms, regardless of any privacy screening, or whether the windows would serve secondary living spaces.

No. 14 also has a side yard which is used as a private outdoor space, which is narrow and already entirely enclosed by tall boundary features. Accordingly, the presence of additional tall built form, set back behind the appeal site wall, would not result in a harmful enclosing effect to this space.

Planning permission was granted in 2017 for a three-storey side extension to no.

[name] am told that pre-commencement conditions were discharged, there is no evidence before me to indicate that development was commenced within the relevant timescales of the permission. As such I attribute limited weight to this planning permission.

There is an outdoor amenity space on a flat roof at [address], enclosed by a fence. The side wall of the two-storey unit would be set back from the boundary and would present as a simple single storey wall. Accordingly, its effect would not be harmfully overbearing on the amenity space.

There is an established grain of development and separation distance between buildings within [address] West, which the development seeks to emulate. However, the characteristics there, and the living conditions experienced by occupants, are different to that of [address], as they do not include the same absence of built form. I therefore do not find that the grain of development in that location, justifies the harmfully overbearing impact to the outlook of the affected neighbouring occupiers.

The Daylight and [name] assesses the extent of daylight and sunlight reaching the windows of the nearest dwellings, including no’s 14 and 15. It uses technical calculations relating to [name] and [name]. It concludes that there would be no impact on sunlight. It also calculates minimal daylight reductions. This includes the ground floor room within no.14, where average daylight, as opposed to sunlight, has been calculated due to the presence of a secondary window.

Whilst there would be some reduction in daylight, this would be within acceptable guidance levels7. The guidance states that anything below that level would result in noticeable light reduction, and there is nothing before me to dispute the calculations or the methodology used. [name] find that the proposal would not lead to a loss of sunlight. Nor would it lead to a harmfully detrimental or noticeable loss of daylight, to the extent that would make the rooms less inviting or gloomy. I also note the Council’s similar stance.

The dining room within [address] receives natural light from a domed, ceiling lightwell. It is positioned next to the fence and side wall of no 15. Given this, the set back and height of the proposed wall, and the second source of light from lounge windows, I am not persuaded that the development would result in a gloomy or oppressive environment in this room.

In respect of privacy, a planning condition could be imposed on any planning permission. It could require a scheme of obscure glazing to be retained, including 6 PP/17/00071. 7 Building Research Establishment Guidance: ‘Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice,’ 2022 the type and level of obscuration and restricted opening of windows. Accordingly, the privacy of neighbouring occupiers would be capable of being safeguarded.

Nevertheless, I conclude that the development would substantially harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook. This would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CD9 of the Local Plan, which requires good living conditions for occupants of neighbouring buildings, taking account of prevailing characteristics of the area, amongst other things. Planning and Heritage Balance and Conclusion

The proposal would boost housing supply, through the provision of two new dwellings, and the refurbishment of two under-utilised dwellings. This is in the context of the [name] (HDT), which I am told is 63% over the previous three years, and there is nothing before me to dispute this calculation. A range of house sizes would also be provided that exceed [name] (NDSS). The proposal is also design-led. Housing delivery in this manner is supported by the Framework and the relevant provisions of Policies HO1, HO2 and HO4 of the Local Plan. Where this makes efficient use of a brownfield site, such as in this case, substantial weight is to be afforded to the value of doing so8.

Modest benefits would derive from the contribution that the small number of dwellings would make to the choice of homes in the area, and modest social and economic benefits would arise during construction, and after occupation.

Aspects of the scheme that I have identified, would enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would positively affect its significance. However, I find that the scale of these enhancements would be modest in the context of the wider harm to the CA caused by the scale, massing and design of the new build units.

During the appeal process the appellant has submitted a [name] restricting the proposed two new residential units to parking permit free only. The Council is satisfied that this overcomes their third reason for refusal, and in so doing, satisfies the requirements of Policy TR8 of the Local Plan. This is a consideration that weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The appellant has engaged in pre-application public consultation exercises, which resulted in design amendments prior to the submission of the planning application. The proposed floorspace falls below the threshold for community housing provision, and as such there would be no conflict with policy HO3 of the Local Plan. These are also neutral factors.

Having regard to Policy CD4 of the Local Plan and paragraph 215 of the Framework, I must weigh the low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset against the public benefits. 8 Paragraph 125 (c), National Planning Policy Framework.

Taking the stated benefits of the appeal scheme together, while there would be a package of substantial, moderate and limited public benefits, the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage asset through the scale, massing and design of the proposed new build units would be of greater significance. In accordance with Local Plan Policy CD4 and the Framework, I am not persuaded that there would be wider public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the great weight afforded to the asset’s conservation and the considerable importance and weight afforded to the less than substantial harm identified to its significance.

Ordinarily the HDT result would lead me to consider paragraph 11 d) of the Framework. However, I am mindful that in this case I have found that the proposal would conflict with the relevant policies of the Framework relating to designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by public benefits. I consider this to be a strong reason for refusing the proposed development as set out in footnote 7 of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

I have found that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the designated heritage asset, and that it would substantially harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This is in conflict with Policies CD1, CD2 and CD4, CD9 and CD15 of the Local Plan.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, and the stated benefits would not amount to material considerations of such significance to lead me to conclude that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Moreover, the proposal would result in benefits of substantial, and others of moderate and limited weight. However, the harm identified that would result from the proposal, and the associated conflict with the development plan would be of greater significance. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.