®Planning appeal decision
35 Napier Avenue, London, SW6 3PS
Planning appeal 3268277 at 35 Napier Avenue, London, SW6 3PS (London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham) was dismissed on 15 June 2021 by Inspector Somers J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: For Appeals B and C: the effect of the proposed ground and first floor rear extensions upon the character and appearance of the building and the locality, with particular regard to the Hurlingham Club Conservation Area.
the erection of a part one, part two and part three storey single family dwellinghouse; retention of the basement. Appeal
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Somers J
- Postcode
- SW6 3PS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- For Appeals B and C: the effect of the proposed ground and first floor rear extensions upon the character and appearance of the building and the locality, with particular regard to the Hurlingham Club Conservation Area.
- For Appeal A: whether Condition No.2 of Planning Permission Ref 2019/01449/FUL is necessary and reasonable; and for Appeals B and C: the effect of the proposed ground and first floor rear extensions upon the living conditions of No.33 Napier Avenue, with particular regard to outlook, enclosure, and access to light.
What decided it
The proposed extensions would cause less than substantial harm to the conservation area character and unacceptable harm to neighbouring residential amenity, and the public benefits did not clearly outweigh these harms.
The less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the unacceptable harm to neighbouring living conditions were not outweighed by the public benefits of reinstatement of the dwelling and other ancillary benefits, which were not distinct to these appeals.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy DC1Policy DC4Policy DC8Policy HO11
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 193Paragraph 194Paragraph 196
- Judgments
- Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Allowed27 October 2026601087847, Mendora Road, London, SW6 7ND
- Dismissed1 October 20266010445Pavement Outside 498-504 Fulham Road, London, SW6 5NH
- Dismissed1 October 20266010443Pavement Outside 498-504 Fulham Road, London, SW6 5NH
- Allowed23 September 20266010549The Triangle, 5 - 17 Hammersmith Grove, London, W6 0LG
- Unknown18 September 20263356900Unit 1D, Woodstock Studios, 36 Woodstock Grove, London, W12 8LE
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.