Planning application · Westminster
26/01087/FULL.
59A Elizabeth Street London SW1W 9PP
Full / Other Planning at 59A Elizabeth Street London SW1W 9PP, received 20 Feb 2026 — refused on 21 May 2026 (delegated, Nikki Mitchell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWestminster profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 May 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
23
Documents
23 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
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?
Replacement of single-glazed windows on first and second floor of front elevation with new slimline double glazed timber sash windows.
Reference
26/01087/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW1W 9PP
Council
Received
20 Feb 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
21 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/01087/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW1W 9PP
Council
Received
20 Feb 2026
Validated
23 Mar 2026
Target date
18 May 2026
Decision date
21 May 2026
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 21 May 2026, delegated decision by Nikki Mitchell — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
20 Feb 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
21 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Nikki Mitchell
20 Feb 2026
Application received
23 Mar 2026
Application validated
18 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Nikki Mitchell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Your drawings do not include enough details of the existing adjacent historic windows (including visible
framing dimensions and framing and glazing bar profiles) for us to assess how your plans would affect
the building and the Belgravia Conservation Area.
We believe that the work could fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the building and the conservation area. This would not meet Policies 42 and 44 of the
City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X22AE)
2
Because of their detailed design, the proposed replacement windows would harm the architectural and
historic interest of this grade II listed building. They would also fail to maintain or improve (preserve or
enhance) the character and appearance of the Belgravia Conservation Area. This would not meet
Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X17AE)
1
Your drawings do not include enough details of the existing adjacent historic windows (including visible
framing dimensions and framing and glazing bar profiles) for us to assess how your plans would affect
the building and the Belgravia Conservation Area.
We believe that the work could fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the building and the conservation area. This would not meet Policies 42 and 44 of the
City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X22AE)
2
Because of their detailed design, the proposed replacement windows would harm the architectural and
historic interest of this grade II listed building. They would also fail to maintain or improve (preserve or
enhance) the character and appearance of the Belgravia Conservation Area. This would not meet
Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X17AE)
Policies cited
City Plan 42City Plan 44City Plan 45
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.