Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasWestminsterKnightsbridge And Belgravia ward20/06090/FULL
Planning application · Westminster

20/06090/FULL.

Eresby House Rutland Gate London SW7 1BG

Full / Other Planning at Eresby House Rutland Gate London SW7 1BG, received 29 Sep 2020 — refused on 27 Nov 2020 (delegated, Jonathon Metcalfe).

WestminsterKnightsbridge And BelgraviaSW7 1BG20/06090/FULL
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWestminster profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Nov 2020
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
32
Documents
32 linked
2
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?

Works to front of building to include installation of perimeter security fence, vehicle and pedestrian gates, CCTV cameras and new hedge planting.

Reference
20/06090/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW7 1BG
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
24 Nov 2020
Decision date
27 Nov 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Reference
20/06090/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW7 1BG
Received
29 Sep 2020
Target date
24 Nov 2020
Decision date
27 Nov 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
REFUSAL-FULL PP [PE]
27 Nov 2020
DELEGATED REPORT
27 Nov 2020
PROPOSED SITE PLAN (VEHICULAR TELESCOPIC GATE) REVISED
19 Nov 2020
TRANSPORT NOTE (REVISED)
19 Nov 2020
ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT
18 Nov 2020
HERITAGE NOTE
9 Nov 2020
SIMON BIRKETT
30 Oct 2020
MRS CAROL SEYMOUR-NEWTON
14 Oct 2020
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION LETTER (21D)
13 Oct 2020
ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
12 Oct 2020
REFUSAL-FULL PP [PE]
27 Nov 2020
DELEGATED REPORT
27 Nov 2020
PROPOSED SITE PLAN (VEHICULAR TELESCOPIC GATE) REVISED
19 Nov 2020
Show all 10 rows
TRANSPORT NOTE (REVISED)
19 Nov 2020
ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT
18 Nov 2020
HERITAGE NOTE
9 Nov 2020
SIMON BIRKETT
30 Oct 2020
MRS CAROL SEYMOUR-NEWTON
14 Oct 2020
NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION LETTER (21D)
13 Oct 2020
ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
12 Oct 2020

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 27 Nov 2020, delegated decision by Jonathon Metcalfe — 8 weeks from submission.

Timeline

Date
Event
29 Sep 2020
Application received
24 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
27 Nov 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Jonathon Metcalfe
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
29 Sep 2020
Application received
24 Nov 2020
Statutory target date
27 Nov 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Jonathon Metcalfe
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Because of their height, width (coverage) and design, the railings, gates and piers would harm the setting and appearance of this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and appearance of the Kightsbridge Conservation Area. This would not meet S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007 and policy KBR 1 of the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Plan 2018 -2037 (December 2018).
1
Because of their height, width (coverage) and design, the railings, gates and piers would harm the setting and appearance of this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and appearance of the Kightsbridge Conservation Area. This would not meet S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007 and policy KBR 1 of the Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Plan 2018 -2037 (December 2018).
Policies cited
S25S28our Unitary Development Plan 10.128KBR1

Appeal

Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
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.