Planning application · Westminster
20/06065/FULL.
Full / Other Planning at 15 Rede Place London W2 4TU, received 29 Sep 2020 — refused on 16 Nov 2020 (delegated, Alistair Taylor).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWestminster profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Nov 2020
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
29
Documents
29 linked
1
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
Record from the Westminster planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Installation of an aluminium pergola onto the existing roof terrace at third floor level.
Reference
20/06065/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
24 Nov 2020
Decision date
16 Nov 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
20/06065/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
24 Nov 2020
Decision date
16 Nov 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Westminster portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 16 Nov 2020, delegated decision by Alistair Taylor — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
29 Sep 2020
Application received
24 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
16 Nov 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Alistair Taylor
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
29 Sep 2020
Application received
24 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
16 Nov 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Alistair Taylor
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Because of its size, design and location, the pergola structure would harm the appearance of
this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the Bayswater Conservation Area, and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or
enhance) the setting of the Westbourne Conservation Area. This would not meet S25 and
S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 5, DES 6, DES 9, DES 1 and
paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.
(X16AD)
1
Because of its size, design and location, the pergola structure would harm the appearance of
this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the Bayswater Conservation Area, and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or
enhance) the setting of the Westbourne Conservation Area. This would not meet S25 and
S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 5, DES 6, DES 9, DES 1 and
paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.
(X16AD)
Policies cited
S25S28our Unitary Development Plan 10.128
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.