The Planning Applications Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council met on Tuesday, 21 October 2025, to consider a range of planning and listed building applications. Key decisions included the approval of a mansard roof extension at 24 Russell Road, the refusal of planning permission and listed building consent for extensions at 11 Ladbroke Gardens, and the refusal of a 24-hour opening application for an adult gaming centre at 153 Earls Court Road.

24 Russell Road: Mansard Roof Extension Approved

The committee granted planning permission for a mansard roof extension at 24 Russell Road, which will create a new two-bedroom residential property. The decision was made despite objections from the Holland and Russell Roads Garden Committee, who argued that the extension would disrupt the light and air of the area and set a precedent for further mansard extensions. They highlighted that a previous appeal against a similar development had been allowed, with the Secretary of State noting it would ruin the maintained and very carefully calibrated and totally unique level of the parapet. The agent for the applicant countered that government policy prioritises building more housing and that the proposed mansard respects council guidelines, being distinct in form and materials. The committee noted that while policy CD12 of the local plan requires roof alterations to be architecturally sympathetic and resist mansard extensions where they are not a prevailing feature, officers found the design, form, and materials of this proposal to be acceptable, also weighing the contribution to the borough's housing stock. The application was granted by a vote of 3-2.

11 Ladbroke Gardens: Planning and Listed Building Consent Refused

Planning permission and listed building consent were refused for a rear extension at lower ground and basement level at 11 Ladbroke Gardens. Objectors, including Sophia Lambert and Anna Lloyd, expressed concern about the gradual erosion of the historic design of the backs of the houses and the singularly modern garden and extension which they felt had more in common with the Mediterranean than really a garden in central London. They argued that the proposed extension, with its slate roof, would look out of place and that the lowering and flattening of the garden would be a great loss. While officers acknowledged a level of harm in their assessment, they initially balanced this against public benefits such as efficient use of space and enhanced living conditions. However, councillors, particularly Councillor North and Councillor Hargreaves, expressed reservations about the visual impact and heritage concerns. Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse both the planning permission and listed building consent on the grounds of visual impact and harm to heritage, with Councillor North proposing the refusal, seconded by Councillor Hargreaves.

153 Earls Court Road: 24-Hour Opening for Adult Gaming Centre Refused

The committee refused an application to allow an adult gaming centre at 153 Earls Court Road to operate 24 hours a day. The proposal was recommended for approval for a temporary 12-month period, with officers noting that the business had not attracted complaints and that there would be no negative impact on amenity. However, objectors, including Councillor Wade and Kieran Terry, argued that the council should prioritise residents and that the extension of hours would exacerbate anti-social behaviour (ASB), citing an increase in ASB in the Earl's Court Ward. Kieran Terry stated, The cumulative effect of multiple 24-hour casinos will create an unacceptable amount of noise into the night. Concerns were also raised about the cumulative impact of multiple 24-hour casinos and the proximity to local hospitals housing vulnerable people. The applicant's agent, Caitlin Attrell, and Gerry Wilcox of Luxury Leisure, highlighted their company's responsible operations, staff training, and commitment to safer gambling, noting that 60% of their venues already operate 24-7. Despite the applicant's assurances and the proposed 12-month trial, the committee, influenced by resident concerns and the potential for cumulative impact, voted to refuse the application. Councillor Hargreaves proposed the refusal, seconded by Councillor North, citing increased comings and goings, noise disturbance, and cumulative impact as reasons.

77 Cornwall Crescent: Balcony Approved with Conditions

Planning permission was granted for the installation of a cast iron rear balcony at first-floor level at 77 Cornwall Crescent. Objector Sophia Lambert raised concerns about the loss of privacy and daylight to her property below, stating the proposed balcony would cause an unacceptable loss of my privacy below at raised ground floor and basement levels. She also noted that the planner's report commented that the addition of this balcony was ultimately an extravagance, given the existing terrace at roof level of this property. The agent for the applicant, Faris Kalala, argued that natural light levels would not be diminished and that the balcony would not cause unacceptable noise or disturbance. The committee agreed to grant permission, with a condition that the balcony floor material be impermeable and agreed by officers, addressing concerns about water runoff and light transfer.

30-31 Bolton Gardens: Single-Storey Garden Building Approved

Permission was granted for the construction of a single-storey garden building at 30-31 Bolton Gardens. The proposed outbuilding, measuring 3 metres deep and 4.5 metres wide with a maximum height of 3.2 metres, would be clad in timber slats and feature a glazed roof lantern. Officers considered the design and materials to be complementary to the host property and conservation area, and that its discreet siting would not lead to overshadowing or overbearing impacts. While an objector, Christopher Knapp, was present, no speakers were heard, and the committee proceeded to questions for officers. Councillor Hargreaves noted a similar withdrawn application earlier in the year, and officers confirmed that the current proposal was smaller and that they had worked with the applicant to refine the design. The application was approved.

12 Cathcart Road: Demolition and Replacement Dwelling Refused

The committee refused permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 12 Cathcart Road and the construction of a new two-storey dwelling. Officers recommended refusal, stating that the proposed replacement dwelling would not provide a greater overall contribution to the character and appearance of the Bolton's Conservation Area, resulting in less than substantial harm to a positive contributor. Objector Cormac Weldon expressed concerns about the impact on his property's daylight and sunlight, stating that 44% of our windows would fall below the BRE guidelines by between 27% and 55%. Applicant Rupert Clark argued that the existing building had limited architectural merit and that the new proposal would offer significant public benefits, including biodiversity net gain and net-zero ready sustainability. Despite the applicant's claims of improved design and sustainability, the committee sided with the officer's recommendation, refusing the application on heritage grounds.

10 Holland Park: Basement Extension Approved

Planning permission and listed building consent were granted for a single-storey lower ground floor extension (basement) at 10 Holland Park. The proposal includes internal alterations and the installation of plant within an existing timber enclosure. The application was a renewal of a previously approved scheme, with the key change being a reduction in the basement size by 15 square metres. Objectors, represented by Henry Shipley, raised concerns about the cumulative impact of this development with a similar approved development at number 12 Holland Park, particularly regarding structural damage and traffic movements. They also highlighted glaring omissions in the assessment of impacts on neighbours' quality of life. The applicant's agent, Hannah Whitney, stated that the proposals were sensitively designed to respect the listed building and conservation area and met council policies. The application was granted by a vote of 4-1 for both planning permission and listed building consent.

38 Smith Terrace: Basement Extension and Rear Infill Approved

Permission was granted for a single-storey glass infill extension and a single-storey basement at 38 Smith Terrace. Officers recommended approval, stating that the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the building and the wider terrace and conservation area, and ensure good living conditions for neighbours. Objector Alec Letchfield argued that the current application circumvented a previous committee rejection by making incremental changes and that the basement depth and area still breached guidelines. He also raised concerns about groundwater issues and potential structural damage. Applicant Andrew Patterson countered that the current proposal was policy compliant, with the basement extending to only 50% of the rear garden and the light well being open space. The application was granted with one against.

30 Paultons Square: Replacement Infill Extension and Closet Wing Extension Approved

The committee granted planning permission and listed building consent for a replacement infill extension and a single-storey closet wing extension at 30 Paultons Square. The proposal includes the replacement of a non-historic glazed extension with a more contemporary addition and the construction of a closet wing extension. Objectors, represented by Amy Bartlett, raised concerns about the impact of the closet wing addition on light to their property and the absence of a condition to reroute rainwater drainage from number 30 to number 31's drainage. Officers concluded that the proposed extensions would not adversely affect the architectural and historic interests of the Grade II listed building and conservation area, and would preserve good living conditions for neighbours. The application was granted by a vote of 3-2 for both planning permission and listed building consent.

49 Radnor Walk: Extension and Roof Terrace Approved, Subject to Deferral

The committee deferred a decision on an application for a rear extension at first and second floor levels at 49 Radnor Walk, which would include the creation of a roof terrace. The deferral was requested to allow for a site visit and further assessment of the impact of the proposed roof terrace on neighbouring properties, particularly 24B Smith Terrace, due to the narrowness of the street. Objectors, Martin Davis and Edmund van der Kloot, argued that the terrace would overlook their bedrooms, while the applicant's agent, Claudia Turton, contended that the terrace would not be visible from the objecting properties. The committee agreed to defer the application to allow for a physical view of the site and further assessment.

95 Lansdowne Road: Basement Extension and Roof Alterations Approved

Planning permission was granted for the construction of a basement beneath 95 Lansdowne Road, along with alterations at roof level and an extension at lower ground floor. The application had been deferred at a previous meeting due to concerns about flooding. The applicant submitted a supplementary flood risk assessment and revised drainage strategy, which officers, after careful consideration and consultation with the council's flooding and drainage officer, deemed acceptable. The proposal was found to comply with relevant policies, with no material impact on the risk of flooding elsewhere. The application was granted by a vote of three in favour, one against, and one abstention.

14 Ladbroke Square: Roof Terrace Approved

Permission was granted for the creation of a roof terrace at first-floor level at 14 Ladbroke Square. The proposal includes the installation of black metal railings, decking, and a door to access the terrace. There were no speakers on this case, and the officer's recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to recommended conditions, was approved.

Markham Square: Demolition and Replacement Approved

The committee granted planning permission for extensive works at Markham Square, including the demolition and replacement of the existing closet wing, demolition of the base structure to the rear, provision of infill extensions, demolition and replacement of the existing mansard roof, and other associated works. Officers concluded that while there was substantial demolition, the existing elevations were largely unsympathetic additions that made little contribution to the conservation area, and their removal presented an opportunity to improve the architectural quality. The proposal was considered to preserve the character and appearance of the building, terrace group, and conservation area.

106 Cheney Walk: Condition Discharge Approved

A condition discharge for 106 Cheney Walk was approved. This related to an advertisement consent for replacement LED digital advertising displays, including a living wall. Officers assessed the submitted details for the living green wall, including the maintenance and planting schedule, and found them to be appropriate and satisfactory.