13 - 17 Montpelier Street, London, SW7 1HQ

use of first and second floor level as two self-contained residential flats (Class C3), creation of terrace at rear first floor level, opening up blind windows to Montpelier Place and internal alterations in connection with new residential use. Alterations including new openable rooflights on rear first floor flat roof, replacement of existing full height extract ductwork to rear, removal of existing and installation of new air condenser units on rear first floor flat roof and main roof level, shopfront alterations to nos. 13 and 15, new retractable awnings, lowering of front basement vaults and internal alterations in connection with the continued use of the restaurant at lower ground and ground floor level. Appeal B: APP/X5990/W/22/3290247 13-17, Montpelier Street, London SW7 1HQ

Authority: City of Westminster Council
Appeal type: other · Listed Building Consent & Conservation Area Consent Appeal
Procedure: Hearing
Development: residential · Other minor developments
Inspector: Webb B

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

the effects of the appeal schemes on designated heritage assets, including whether they would preserve a Grade II listed building (13-17 Montpelier Street) and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; whether they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Knightsbridge Conservation Area; and, in relation to Appeal B, whether the scheme would preserve the setting of the adjoining Grade II listed building (6-17 Montpelier Place)
the effect of the schemes subject of Appeals A and B on neighbour amenity having particular regard to late night noise and disturbance

What decided it

Whether the proposed rear extension (present only in Appeals B and C) caused heritage harm to the listed buildings and conservation area that outweighed the scheme's public benefits.

For Appeals B and C, the less than substantial heritage harm (great weight to 13-17 Montpelier Street, considerable weight to 6-17 Montpelier Place and the Conservation Area) was not outweighed by the limited heritage, housing and negligible economic benefits, so the balance favoured dismissal; Appeal A involved no such harm and was allowed.

Framework references: 199, 202

Plan policies cited: Policy 39, Policy 38, Policy 40, Policy KBR1, Policy 7, Policy 16, Policy KBR14, Policy KBR15

Read the decision letter on the Inspectorate’s site

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.