Agenda item

Kings Court, 31 Prince Albert Road, London,NW8 7LT


Erection of single storey extension at eighth floor level and use of part of flat roof as a terrace with associated balustrade.


Having declared a prejudicial interest Councillor Robert Rigby left the room during the consideration of the application.


RESOLVED: That Councillor Louise Hyams be elected to Chair the item.


The presenting officer tabled the following amendments to the committee report:


8.2 Townscape and Design


Objections have been received in relation to the design and appearance of the extension and the existing seventh floor level of the building having a negative impact on the townscape.


Whilst it is located outside of a conservation area, it is located in a highly sensitive location adjacent to Primrose Hill and Regents Park Conservation Area, and the building is readily visible from both those vantage points.  Whilst the site is located outside of a conservation area, it is recognised that the building is sited adjoining two notably sensitive heritage locations, namely Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill.  Regents Park is included in Historic England’s Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England at Grade 1, with Primrose Hill included at Grade 2.  In addition, Regent’s Park is included within a conservation area. Whilst recognising this sensitive setting, the proposals within this application are not considered to adversely affect the setting of these parks.  The south-west corner of Primrose Hill includes an unlisted though attractive gothic style lodge building and to the north side of the application site are a series of altered historic terraced properties which retain some sense of their original form, however the extension proposed to the roof level of the application building is not considered to adversely affect these heritage assets.


It is of relevance that a matching scheme was approved previously on 02 February 2016 under application referenced 15/11197/FULL.  It is recognised that the City Plan has been adopted and the NPPF issued since that time, however these policies and guidance are not considered to give weight to a differing determination from the previous decision. 


It is recognised that Unitary Development Plan policy DES 12 sets out a series of criteria to consider proposals for development adjoining parks and gardens, including that permission will only be granted for proposals which safeguard their appearance and setting, preserve their historic integrity, protect views into and out of these spaces, and will not project above existing tree or building lines.  For the reasons set out elsewhere in this report, and mindful of the previous approval, it is not considered that the proposals would be contrary to the aims and objectives of this policy. 


No alterations are proposed to the existing façade at seventh floor level. The extension is shown with a consistent rhythm of aluminium framing subdividing the main elevations of the extension into a series of bays responding to the width and location of the bays of the elevation below.  The white framing will help integrate the structure into the character of the building which has a white rendered top floor, with the brickwork facing to the rear picking up on its use in the lower floors of the building.  Overall, the extension is considered neatly detailed.  A series of 'look a like' spandrel panels are being used to screen views from the extension on the western elevation, and the appropriate detailing of these will be secured by condition. Given the above, the extension is considered acceptable in design terms. 



Objectors state that the extension and existing seventh floor have a negative impact on the area. Officers consider that though the extension is readily visible from both relatively short and long views from the surrounding area, including the parks, it is not considered to harm the character and appearance of the building or townscape, nor harm the setting of the parks and in the context of the surrounding townscape does not appear excessively large to the roof of the building. 


Given the above, the proposals are not considered to harm the character and appearance of the building, surrounding townscape, and this includes a consideration that harm is not considered to be caused to the setting of the adjoining Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill.  As such, the proposals are considered acceptable in design, townscape and heritage terms.  The recommendation for approval is considered in line with the statutory duties set out in s. 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 


The recommendation is considered in line with relevant policies and guidance, and with the statutory duties set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 


RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: (Councillors Hyams, Spencer and Noble)


That conditional permission be granted.

Supporting documents: