Application reference25-00114-HAPP
- Address
- 45, MURRAY MEWS, LONDON, NW1 9RH
- Status
Assessment in progress
Understanding application statuses- Application type
- Planning permissionUnderstanding application types
Progress
Received -
This is the date that the application is received by the council. It may not be the date it was sent, if there have been delays in the submission process.
Valid from -
This is the date that the application is considered a valid application. Usually this will be the same as the received date, but sometimes applications are submitted incorrectly, and need correcting to be valid. This is the date that processing the application officially begins.
Published -
This is the date the application is registered by the council and published on the digital planning register. It may be different from the date the application is valid from, as it can take time to put a valid application online.
Consultation ended - 5 Feb 2025
This is the date that the statutory consultation will end for the application.
Once an application has been submitted, there are at least 21 days (excluding bank/public holidays) where the council is not permitted to make a decision. This is the statutory consultation period. It can go on for longer than 21 days, but it cannot be any less.
During this time, comments can be submitted for consideration by the planning team. Some councils allow comments to be submitted until a decision has been made, but they all must accept comments during the consultation.
Description
Proposed second-floor extension to front and rear.
Documents
To find out more detailed information, please read the following document(s) provided by the applicant.
Showing 6 of 10 documents
Show all 10 documentsPeople
If you want to find out more about this application, please contact the case officer first.
Case Officer
This is the individual at the council who is currently responsible for assessing this application.
Case Officer Name
Miriam Baptist
Public Comments
Comment #2published 5 Feb 2025
Published
Objection
* Comment on the design, size or height of new buildings or extensions: Over the past twenty years changes in scale have occurred to properties in Murray Mews. Modest Mews homes have been allowed to become quite substantive (now expensive) houses. Several years ago numbers 40 and 45 underwent development, and a further floor was added to each. This did to some degree dwarf adjacent houses. The precedent was then set, and further ‘scaling-up’ has at intervals along the Mews occurred. At number 41 a larger volume was recently added to the top floor. The proposals to now enlarge the top floor of number 45 will have an impact on the neighbouring properties. Particularly to number 47 and our home number 43. The ‘street-scape’ will change again, and with this mind we are opposed to the current proposals on grounds of overbearing scale to the locality.
Comment #3published 29 Jan 2025
Published
Objection
* Comment on the design, size or height of new buildings or extensions: It is noticeable that no dimensions are provided with this application. However it is possible to calculate these from the scale provided. From this I work out that this application would like to increase the size of the area of the top floor from 31.5 Sq M to 48.15 Sq M - an increase of 53%. This would be a massive increase in the bulk, visibility and intrusiveness of the top floor of No 45 Murray Mews, onto it's neighbours and the general public. My house faces the rear of No 45 and so will only be directly affected by the the proposed extension over more than half of the rear roof terrace. The existing roof terrace it 2.75 M deep. This proposal suggests covering a depth of 1.40 M of this with a box shaped extension which would of course overlook my back garden. This will also of course significantly reduce the light reaching the rear of my property, particularly in the mornings. Apart from the part of this proposal that directly affects my property, I also object in principal to the proposed extension on the side which overlooks Murray Mews. Having lived in Camden Square since 1975, I have seen many developments and conversions in Murray Mews and Camden Mews over the years. Up until now, when Planning Applications have been granted, planners have always insisted that any new 2nd floor had to be modest and well set back from the front and rear walls of the building. This proposal flies in the face of that convention. The present box shaped 2nd floor is set back 2.8 M from the front of the house. This proposal would like to bring that box whithin 1.5 M of the front wall thus making it much more visible and intrusive as seen from both Murray Mews but also from Cantelowes Road. This flies in the face of all of the previously permitted 2nd floors - and indeed this one - where they are well set back and or have much less visible roofs. * Comment on any impacts on natural light: The very large size and the box shape of the roof of this proposed 2nd floor, will have a significant negative affect on the light reaching our back garden. The proposed 2nd floor is totally out of scale with all the other neighbouring properties, which I notice are not shown at all in this application. It is clear that by doing that, the applicant would like to hide the impact that this propsal would have on their neighbours. * Comment on any impacts on privacy of neighbours: This proposal would bring the top floor of the rear of No 45, 1.4m closer to us. It would also of course reduce our privacy but increase our feeling of being overlooked, accordingly. * Other comments: I think that it is really bad that this application has been submitted without any dimensions being given and also without showing the neighbouring properties and the effect that it will have on them. It is clear that the proposed 2nd floor is far too big and protrudes far to much onto the existing terraces both on the Murray Mews side and at the back. I am also aware that this proposal will have a very negative impact on its neighbour at No 47, because being to its south, it will block a great deal of sunlight from reaching that property. The applicant has clearly given no consideration to this.
Showing 3 of 6 comments
Show all 6 neighbour comments
Comment #1published 5 Feb 2025
Published
Objection
* Comment on the design, size or height of new buildings or extensions: This appears a poor application and lacks clear dimensions and also does not really show how it will affect neighbouring properties in the visualisations given. However it is clear the scale is disproportionate to others, including neighbouring properties, which will tend to reduce the charm of the mews. * Comment on any impacts on natural light: The very large size of this proposed development will have a significant effect it increasing the shading of neighbouring properties and will generally reduce the light penetrating the area. It will shade properties at both the front and the rear which is a most unwelcome plan making the area less pleasant for all. * Comment on any impacts on privacy of neighbours: The proposal would bring the outside of the property and the windows closer to the neighbouring properties which is completely unwelcome and unnecessary since the property is large scale already and would cause a loss in privacy. A decrease in privacy would also also be caused by decreasing the size of the rear terrace bring users closer to my property.