®Planning appeal decision
SOUTH KENSINGTON STATION & 20-48 (EVEN) & 36-46 (ODD) THURLOE ST, & & 20-48 (EVEN) AND 36-46 (ODD) THURLOE ST; 1-9 (ODD) PELHAM ST; , 20-34 THURLOE SQUARE LONDON, SW7 2NA
restoration and refurbishment of the retail facades within the Arcade, alterations to the Ticket Hall within the South Kensington Station to provide for step-free access, construction of a fire escape stairwell, construction of two retail facades within the Subway, demolition of the brick wall along Pelham Street and other associated works. Appeal
- Authority
- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
- Appeal type
- other · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- other · Unknown
- Inspector
- Hill Z
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the proposed development/works would preserve the listed buildings identified as: South Kensington Station, South Kensington Station Subway, nos. 1-29 Pelham Place, nos. 45-51 and 52 Thurloe Square and nos. 6-12 Thurloe Square, or their setting or any special architectural or historic interest which they possess; and, the effect on the non-designated heritage asset 20-34 Thurloe Street
- whether or not the proposed development/works would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Thurloe Estate and Smith Charity Conservation Area
- the effect of the noise of construction works on living conditions for occupiers of nearby dwellings during the development phase
- whether or not the scheme provides a policy compliant amount of affordable housing having in mind economic viability
- whether there are any other matters against the proposal which should be considered in the planning balance
- the benefits arising from the works and development that should be weighed in the overall heritage and planning balances including the weight to be attached to those benefits
What decided it
The substantial public benefit of finally delivering Step Free Access to the District and Circle lines, secured through the s.106 Agreement, outweighed the less-than-substantial heritage harms identified.
The substantial benefits of Step Free Access, station capacity upgrade delivery, housing (including affordable housing) and economic benefits outweighed the less than substantial heritage harm (at the lower end of that spectrum) to listed buildings and the Conservation Area, so the appeals (save for the Subway shopfronts) were allowed.
Framework references: 11, 202, 206
Plan policies cited: Policy CL1, Policy CL2, Policy CL3, Policy CL4, Policy CL5, Policy CL7, Policy CL8, Policy CL10, Policy CL11, Policy CL12, Policy CE1, Policy CE2, Policy CE3, Policy CE4, Policy CE5, Policy CE6, Policy CE7, Policy CT1, Policy CH2, Policy CF1, Policy CF2, Policy CF5, Policy CP1, Policy CO5, Policy CR6, Policy CR7, London Plan Policy H4, London Plan Policy D3, London Plan Policy D7, London Plan Policy D11, London Plan Policy D14, London Plan Policy G1, London Plan Policy G5, London Plan Policy GG2, London Plan Policy SI1, London Plan Policy SI2, London Plan Policy SI4, London Plan Policy SI5, London Plan Policy HC1
Judgments cited: East Northamptonshire DC & Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v SoS [2015] 1 WLR 45; Newcastle City Council v SoS for LUCH(2022] EWHC 27521 November 2022)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.