# 274 Portobello Road (ground floor), London W10

- **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden
- **Authority:** Kensington and Chelsea (London)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008439
- **Application reference:** PP/25/03918
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective-in-part single-storey steel and glazed side extension enclosing restaurant seating on Acklam Road
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3
- **Development plan policies:** RBKC New Local Plan Review 2024 CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD10, CD13, CD15, CD16
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area setting, public access, fire safety
- **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area-setting, heritage-harm-decisive, e2-substantial-weight, design-refusal, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, no-s4-s5-analysis

## Summary
A full-length steel and glass side enclosure for restaurant seating on a Portobello Road corner, facing the Acklam Road market space. Dismissed. It was bulky, not subordinate, and discordant (DP3). It caused moderate harm to the setting of the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area. E2 gives substantial weight to business expansion, but the unquantified benefits were "comfortably outweighed" in the HE6 balance.

## What made the difference
Prominence on an open corner seen from within the conservation area, and the inspector's point that the benefits could be achieved "in a less harmful way". The decision was made on heritage and design grounds alone. It contains no S4 analysis.

## Policy findings
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to setting of Oxford Gardens CA; unquantified benefits "comfortably outweighed" (DL 17-19)
- **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to business expansion acknowledged but outweighed (DL 18)
- **DP3: fail.** full-length, non-subordinate black steel extension on prominent corner (DL 7-12)

## Key facts
- Built structure differs from submitted plans; appeal decided on the plans (DL 3)
- Ownership and public access over the market hardstanding unresolved; no finding (DL 21-23)
- Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2); S4 not mentioned

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008439
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c705dbe-3ed0-46e6-8c26-a755ee9f86c6

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008439.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.