®Planning appeal decision
Upper Maisonette, 81 Randolph Avenue, LONDON, W9 1DL
Without the benefit of planning permission…the undertaking of the following unauthorised works; A) Alterations to the main roof to raise the height of the main roof of the Property, which has been accommodated by the enlargement of the soffit box to the front, side and rear of the Property in order to bridge the gap between decorative corbel/brackets on the façade and the roof slope and the repositioning of the guttering. B) The erection of new front, side and rear dormers to the new main roof. C) The installation of railings around the perimeter of the flat roof section of the new main roof
- Authority
- City of Westminster Council
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Householder developments
- Inspector
- Russell J
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the appeal building and of the Maida Vale Conservation Area that the building lies within
- The effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers
- Whether there are any public or other benefits that would outweigh any harm identified and justify a grant of planning permission in this case
What decided it
The development causes less than substantial harm to the significance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset, and the NPPF requires great weight to be given to conservation of such assets, which outweighs the moderate benefits to the appellant's residential accommodation.
Framework references: 11
Plan policies cited: Policy 38, Policy 39, Policy 40, Policy HC1
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.