Installation of a small rear dormer extension to existing loft room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 August 2026 by B J Sims BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:19 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010500 5 Laverton Place, Kensington-Chelsea, London, SW5 0HJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Thomas Jamie against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. • The application Ref is PP/26/02001. • The development proposed is described as the installation of a small rear dormer extension to existing loft room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a rear dormer extension to existing loft room at No 5 Laverton Place, Kensington- Chelsea, London, SW5 0HJ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PP/26/02001, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The finishing materials used in the construction of the dormer extension hereby permitted shall match or complement those of the existing house. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with following approved drawings: 26-0412 D01, 26-0412 D02, 26-0412 D03, 26-0412 D04, 26-0412 D05, 26-0412 D06, 26-0412 D07, 26-0412 D08, 26-0412 D09 Procedural Matters 2. The Council assessed the proposed development against policies CD1-4 and CD12 of the adopted Kensington and Chelsea New Local Plan Review 2024 (NLP) but refused the application with reference to a range of polices prefixed CL which are evidently superseded. The Council also implied that Section 66 of the Planning (Lised Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to protect Listed Buildings applies, whereas the appeal dwelling is not a Listed Building but merely situated within the Courtfield Conservation area (CA), where Section 72 of the same Act provides that the character or appearance of the CA, as a whole, must be preserved or enhanced. The Delegated Officer Report assessment also contains an incorrect reference to a full-width dormer, whilst earlier recording its dimensions as not extending to the full width of the roof. Appeal Decision 6010500 2 3. Despite these procedural errors and factual inconsistencies, the essential meanings and intentions of the Delegated Officer Report, the response of the Appellant and the details on the application drawings considered by the Council are all quite clear. Moreover, this appeal provides for an entirely fresh and independent review of the proposal and every factor for and against it. In the circumstances of this particular case, it is in the best interests of planning and will result in no injustice for this appeal to proceed to determination on the submitted written representations. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect the proposed dormer extension would have on the character and appearance of No 5 Laverton Place itself and on the wider street scene within the Courtfield CA. Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The applicable Policies CD1-4 and CD12 of the NLP together require the proposed dormer roof extension, by way of high-quality design, to respect and enhance its existing context, including the historic character and appearance of the Courtfield CA, as a heritage asset. These provisions are consistent with national planning policy. 6. No 5 is within a terrace of mansard-roofed dwellings fronting Laverton Place. This and other such terraces are recognised in the Courtfield CA Appraisal as contributing to the special heritage value of the CA. 7. The proposed rear dormer would replace three existing roof lights and would be set in from the sides and ridge of the upper slope of the mansard roof. It would align in form and position with the existing fenestration below. 8. The front roof forms of the appeal terrace, and others contributing to the main street scene of the Courtfield CA, are essentially undisturbed by roof extensions. In contrast, the rear roofscape exhibits a wide variety of roof alterations. 9. The dormer would be invisible from the front on Laverton Place and would be little seen from the rear, due its position high on the upper roof slope. Public views would be limited to those available from an oblique angle in adjacent Hesper Mews. 10. Given this context, I consider that, despite altering the visual balance of the rear elevation of the host property, the proposed dormer would not harm the character or appearance of No 5 Laverton Place or its neighbours or the wider Courtfield CA as a whole, which would accordingly be preserved as required by planning law. 11. The provision of improved living accommodation is a material planning benefit in favour of the proposed development. Conclusion 12. Taking into account every relevant consideration raised in the written representations, I find that the proposed rear dormer extension would be compliant with the relevant polices referenced above and with the statutory development plan as a whole. Appeal Decision 6010500 3 13. Accordingly, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed and the permission sought granted, subject only to the standard conditions set out above. B J Sims INSPECTOR