Planning application · Westminster
21/00289/FULL.
79A Warwick Avenue London W9 2PP
Full / Other Planning at 79A Warwick Avenue London W9 2PP, received 19 Jan 2021 — refused on 16 Mar 2021 (delegated, Sarah Whitnall).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWestminster profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Mar 2021
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
0
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 a glazed conservatory on rear elevation at lower ground floor.
Reference
21/00289/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W9 2PP
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jan 2021
Validated
27 Jan 2021
Target date
24 Mar 2021
Decision date
16 Mar 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/00289/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
W9 2PP
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jan 2021
Validated
27 Jan 2021
Target date
24 Mar 2021
Decision date
16 Mar 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 Mar 2021, delegated decision by Sarah Whitnall — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Jan 2021
Application received
27 Jan 2021
Application validated
24 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
16 Mar 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Sarah Whitnall
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
19 Jan 2021
Application received
27 Jan 2021
Application validated
24 Mar 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
16 Mar 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Sarah Whitnall
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Because of its location, scale, projection, design and materials the rear extension would harm
the appearance of this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the
character and appearance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area. This would not meet S25
and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1, DES 5, DES 9 paras
10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.
(X16AD)
2
Due to its location, height, depth, and design, the proposed extension would introduce an un-
neighbourly relationship with the adjacent neighbouring property at 77 Warwick Avenue,
resulting in an increased sense of enclosure of detriment to the amenities the occupiers
currently enjoy. This is contrary to policy ENV13 of our Unitary Development Plan January
2007 and S29 of our City Plan (November 2016).
1
Because of its location, scale, projection, design and materials the rear extension would harm
the appearance of this building and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the
character and appearance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area. This would not meet S25
and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1, DES 5, DES 9 paras
10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.
(X16AD)
2
Due to its location, height, depth, and design, the proposed extension would introduce an un-
neighbourly relationship with the adjacent neighbouring property at 77 Warwick Avenue,
resulting in an increased sense of enclosure of detriment to the amenities the occupiers
currently enjoy. This is contrary to policy ENV13 of our Unitary Development Plan January
2007 and S29 of our City Plan (November 2016).
Policies cited
S25S28our Unitary Development Plan 10.128ENV13S29
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.