Pembridge Association Planning Case Tracker
|No.||Address||Case Reference||Position / Issue||Status||Committee Action Needed||Recommendation||Action taken|
|Dec-17||36 Ledbury Road|
|Erection of mansard roof extension, replacement of front cornice and sash windows to residential property.||* Application due to be heard on 23rd January 2018.||* Respond to correspondence from concerned neighbour regarding the scheme.||* Object to planning application due to sense of enclosure created at the rear for the neighbouring properties.||* Objection made|
|Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide office, residential, and retail uses, and a flexible surgery/office use, across six buildings (ranging from ground plus two storeys to ground plus 17 storeys), with two storey basement together with landscaping to provide a new public square, ancillary parking and associated works (MAJOR APPLICATION).||* Application dismissed previously and referred to planning inspector who set out the reasons why the decision to reject the planning application should be upheld. |
* Applicant has now re-submitted solving the issues identified by the inspector.
* The design seems to be the only contentious issue remaining which could lead to rejection again.
|* Initial letter of objection made due to height, design, affordable housing, construction traffic management.|
* Since meeting the developer and other local societies on balance it was felt the proposed scheme would add positively to the area save for the height and design.
|* Support the scheme due to the Civic amenity that will be created however the height and design we do not support.||* Supporting comment made|
|Nov-17||13 Dawson Place|
|Wall built too high along Dawson Place and Pembridge Crescent (Opposite Dori's house)||* Committee already discussed and objection made.|
* Enforcement officer confirmed wall is too high and issued enforcement notice.
* New planning application submitted.
|* Committee decided to object to the size of the new wall which has already been built.||* The wall has been gradually stepped down instead of maintaining the same height however the wall is still too high and possibly the gate is too high as well. We should comment on the portal that further height reduction is required.||* Objection made|
* Planning application was refused and subsequent planning application was required.
|Oct-17||44a Pembridge Villas|
|Refurbishment of front elevation to transform the front and rear facade to reflect the conservation and design aspirations of Pembridge Villas with the introduction of quoins, appropriate window, brick and door treatment. Construction of rear ground floor extension and half width 4 storey rear closet wing extension, construction of mansard roof extension forming 4th floor and refurbishment to front elevation, together with internal reconfiguration to reduce to 4 flats from 5 and create homes for 15 people rather than 10.||* Committee already discussed and plans reviewed.|
* Case will go to committee for determination.
|* Committee to decide whether to support or object.||* Provide a letter of support reflecting the comments of the PA.||* Supporting comment made|
|Oct-17||33 Chepstow Crescent / Portobello Road||N/A||Gates have been fitted with Opaque Gates which prevents any view through the gates. The gates are high so create a sense of overbearing development||* Committee already discussed.|
The enforcement officer has visited site and deemed the gates are in breach of planning control however deem this to be acceptable due to the breach being a trivial technical breach not causing material harm
|* Committee to decide whether to pursue further.||* Not pursue any further. The enforcement officer has visited site and made the decision so any further correspondence on this matter will not do the PA any favours politically with RBKC||* No further action to be taken|
|Oct-17||10 Pembridge Place|
|Creation of self contained 1 bedroom flat at lower ground floor level and amalgamation of remaining 3 flats to provide 1 x 5 bedroom dwelling. Removal of cat ladder at roof level, replacement of French doors at first floor level with traditional sliding sash and replacement of non original casement window with traditional sash windows. Reconfiguration of rear facade to reduce height of rear extension at ground floor level and increase of rear side extension by 750mm.||* Planning applied for||* Committee to decide if want to make any comments||* This is a sound planning application that will improve the building mainly at the rear but also at the front with the removal of the cat ladder. We should provide a supportive comment reflecting the improvements to the façade however there will be a loss of units as due to consolidating units to form a house.||* On hold till spoken with Barbara. Barbara called the case into the committee and I was unable to speak with her again prior to providing a supporting comment to the façade changes. |
* The application was rejected due to loss of units before any action taken.
|Oct-17||31 Chepstow Villas|
|Construction of rear garden studio (Certificate of Proposed Development/Use)||* Planning applied for||* Committee to decide if want to make any comments||* Committee to decide if it wants to take a stance on rear garden studios / buildings?||* None - the studios located in the rear garden does not impact the public nor the viewable conservation area.|
|Oct-17||31 Chepstow Villas|
|Construction of garden wall and gates at street elevation of property||* Planning applied for||* Committee to decide if gate looks too high.||* Proposed gate looks to high and we should send in an objection.||* Objection made|