Planning application · Westminster
26/01594/FULL.
55 Moreton Street London SW1V 2NY
Full / Other Planning at 55 Moreton Street London SW1V 2NY, received 11 Mar 2026 — refused on 6 May 2026 (delegated, Zulekha Hosenally).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWestminster profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 May 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
26
Documents
26 linked
23
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?
Erection of a mansard roof to Nos. 55, 57 and 59 Moreton Street to create 3 x 1 bedroom flats (site includes Nos. 57 and 59).
Reference
26/01594/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW1V 2NY
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
6 May 2026
Decision date
6 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/01594/FULL
Type
Full Planning Permission Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW1V 2NY
Ward
Council
Received
11 Mar 2026
Target date
6 May 2026
Decision date
6 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
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 6 May 2026, delegated decision by Zulekha Hosenally — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Mar 2026
Application received
6 May 2026
Statutory target date
6 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Zulekha Hosenally
11 Mar 2026
Application received
6 May 2026
Statutory target date
6 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Zulekha Hosenally
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Because of the detailed design and use of materials the proposed mansard extension would harm the
appearance of these buildings and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area. This would not meet Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City
Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X16AD)
2
The development fails to provide 20% of the floorspace as affordable housing or a payment in lieu to
the Council's Affordable Housing Fund contrary to Policy 13 (F) of the City Plan 2019-2040 (January
2026) and our Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (February 2026) which seek to
maximise the provision of affordable homes in Westminster.
3
The proposed mansard roof would make the people living in Nos. 20 to 28 Lupus Street feel too shut in.
This is because of its bulk, choice of materials (brickwork), height and how close it is to windows in
those properties. This would not meet Policies 7 and 42 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026).
(X14BD)
4
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the windows within Nos. 20, 22 and
24 would not experience a loss of daylight or sunlight. This would not meet Policies 7 and 42 of the
City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X14AD)
1
Because of the detailed design and use of materials the proposed mansard extension would harm the
appearance of these buildings and fail to maintain or improve (preserve or enhance) the character and
appearance of the Pimlico Conservation Area. This would not meet Policies 42, 44 and 45 of the City
Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X16AD)
2
The development fails to provide 20% of the floorspace as affordable housing or a payment in lieu to
the Council's Affordable Housing Fund contrary to Policy 13 (F) of the City Plan 2019-2040 (January
2026) and our Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (February 2026) which seek to
maximise the provision of affordable homes in Westminster.
3
The proposed mansard roof would make the people living in Nos. 20 to 28 Lupus Street feel too shut in.
This is because of its bulk, choice of materials (brickwork), height and how close it is to windows in
those properties. This would not meet Policies 7 and 42 of the City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026).
(X14BD)
Show all 4 rows
4
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the windows within Nos. 20, 22 and
24 would not experience a loss of daylight or sunlight. This would not meet Policies 7 and 42 of the
City Plan 2019 - 2040 (January 2026). (X14AD)
Policies cited
City Plan 42City Plan 44City Plan 45City Plan 7
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
23
In support
0
Total comments
23
Objections
23
In support
0
Total comments
23
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.