Kensington and Chelsea Council has refused planning permission for air conditioning units at 89 Blenheim Crescent due to their visual impact and potential harm to residential amenity.
The Planning Applications Committee of Kensington and Chelsea Council convened on Tuesday, 06 October 2026, to consider a retrospective application for the retention of two air conditioning units within an acoustic enclosure in the rear garden of 89 Blenheim Crescent. The committee ultimately refused planning permission for the units.
Officers had recommended refusal on grounds of visual impact and overbearing impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposed units, with their acoustic enclosure, were considered to be overly dominant and unsympathetic due to their prominent and uncharacteristic positioning, excessive height and bulk, and atypical form. These factors were deemed to cause less than substantial harm to the heritage significance of the Ladbroke Conservation Area.
Furthermore, the committee agreed that the units' excessive height, bulk, and massing, coupled with their proximity to the shared boundary with 59 Ladbroke Road, would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact and a materially harmful sense of enclosure, to the detriment of residential amenity. The units themselves were described as gigantic
and go above my head
, with the acoustic enclosure approximately two metres high.
During the committee meeting, councillors discussed the visual impact of the units and the effectiveness of the proposed acoustic enclosure. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of the noise report, the potential for noise to penetrate the enclosure, and the aesthetic impact of the large boxes required for the enclosure. The noise report's findings indicated that the units achieved the requirements of the council's noise SPD, but objectors questioned its accuracy, citing that it did not account for the concrete base or the stacking of two units, which would amplify noise. They also expressed concern that human error during the construction of the acoustic boxes could allow noise to escape, particularly on quiet nights.
Despite the applicant's agent arguing that the units were necessary for mechanical cooling and that environmental health raised no objection subject to conditions, the committee ultimately voted to refuse the application. The environmental health department's non-objection was contingent on strict noise control measures, including ensuring that noise levels do not increase existing background levels, and regular servicing of the plant. Additionally, all plant and equipment were required to be supported on anti-vibration mounts to prevent structural transmission of vibration and regenerated noise. These conditions are intended to accord with policy GB8 of the Local Plan 2024 and prevent significant disturbance to residents.
Councillor North proposed refusal on aesthetic grounds and due to the impact on the conservation area and neighbouring gardens, which was seconded by Councillor Siren. The reasons for refusal cited the units' size, siting, design, and visibility from public and private views. These views included those from almost every room in the house
of an objector at 91 Blenheim Crescent, from the other side
(implying other neighbouring properties), and from the pathway, walking along beyond the boundary of their garden.
While officers assessed that the units would be visible, they did not believe they would be harmful to the conservation area or the nearby registered park and garden.
The communal rear garden
at 89 Blenheim Crescent was also a point of contention. Objectors described the units as huge, revolting boxes that are not in keeping with the buildings, with the conservation area of the Lamprack area
and expressed concern that they would damage the setting of the communal gardens and their amenity, particularly with potential noise penetration into bedrooms.
The retrospective nature of the application also raised concerns about setting a precedent. However, officers noted that concerns about precedents should not determine the individual application. Any future proposal would need to demonstrate its own acceptability in terms of need, noise, sighting, and heritage impact.
The plans presented showed the existing units and the proposed acoustic enclosure, which was deemed necessary to meet the council's noise SPD and recommended conditions.
Regarding alternative solutions, the applicant's agent stated that passive measures were considered but an overheating risk remained, satisfying officers of a functional need for mechanical cooling. Objectors suggested roof installation, citing a similar application nearby. Officers acknowledged that roof placement might be appropriate but would also require consideration of its visual impact from surrounding gardens and areas.
Public reports pack 06th-Oct-2026 18.30 Planning Applications Committee