The Planning Sub-Committee (2) of Westminster Council met on Tuesday 10 March 2026, approving a variation to planning permission at Sandringham Court, refusing advertisement consent for LED screens at 39 Charing Cross Road, and refusing planning permission for extensions at Romney House. The committee also confirmed a Tree Preservation Order for a tree at 75 Carlton Hill.

Sandringham Court, 99 Maida Vale, London, W9 1UA

The committee granted conditional planning permission for a variation to existing planning permission at Sandringham Court. The application sought to alter the internal layouts of two two-bedroom flats, introduce a new window and alter the width of an existing consented window, change a door to a window on the courtyard elevation, and use part of the existing communal garden as private amenity space for the proposed flats, alongside upgrading the communal gardens.

Concerns were raised by residents regarding the loss of garden space, impact on biodiversity, increased noise and disturbance, and the potential for a two-tier system in the use of the gardens. Objectors also cited issues with design, potential flooding, structural integrity, security risks, and the setting of a dangerous precedent. Supporters highlighted that the revised plans reduced the size of the patios, adjusted the lawn to respect the building's character, and that the freeholders were in favour of the works. They also noted that the patios would have a similar impact to existing balconies and that structural and flooding concerns were comparable to other basement developments.

The council's officers were satisfied that the original permission had been implemented and that the proposed alterations were minor. They concluded that while there would be a loss of green space, it would be mitigated by ecological enhancements to a woodland area. The patios were considered to be of an appropriate size and would not result in unacceptable loss of privacy or noise disturbance. The committee approved the application with conditions, with four councillors voting to approve and one to refuse.

39 Charing Cross Road, London, WC2H 0AR

Advertisement consent was refused for the display of five internally illuminated LED screens at 39 Charing Cross Road. The proposal sought to install screens measuring 0.87m x 52m on the ground, first, second, third, and fourth floors of the building, on both the Charing Cross Road and Cranbourn Street frontages.

The council's officers recommended refusal, citing harm to visual amenity, the character and appearance of the Leicester Square Conservation Area, and the setting of the Grade II listed Hippodrome opposite. They argued that the scale, height, and extended length of the screens would create an over-dominant visual presence, disrupting the architectural composition of the building and competing with heritage assets. While supporters highlighted the vibrancy and economic activity of the West End and the potential for community information displays, objectors raised concerns about the saturation of LED screens, visual processing difficulties for some individuals, and the potential for distraction to drivers.

The committee voted to refuse the application, with four councillors voting to refuse and one abstaining.

Romney House, 47 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 3DR

Planning permission was unanimously refused for alterations and extensions at the seventh-floor level of Romney House, which would have created three additional residential units. The proposal included new terraces, photovoltaic panels, green roofs, and mechanical plant.

The primary reason for refusal was fire safety, citing non-compliance with London Plan Policy D12. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advised that the proposed design did not include appropriate means of escape for occupiers or suitable access and equipment for firefighting services. Specifically, the staircases extended to the basement level without adequate separation, and firefighting lifts were proposed within staircases, increasing fire loading.

Objectors also raised concerns about the design, impact on residential amenity (loss of light, sense of enclosure, overlooking, and noise), and construction impacts. Supporters argued that the design was modest and well-designed, that daylight and sunlight impacts were acceptable within the urban context, and that overlooking could be mitigated. They also contended that the HSE's advice was a concern with the design rather than a formal objection and that the proposal did not worsen the existing building's fire safety arrangements.

Despite arguments for deferral to allow further engagement with the HSE, the committee unanimously refused the application on fire safety grounds.

Tree Preservation Order No. 727, 75 Carlton Hill

The committee unanimously confirmed Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 727 (2025) for a Tree of Heaven located in the rear garden of 75 Carlton Hill. The TPO was made following a notice of intent to remove the tree, with the owner citing damage to the property and the tree being an invasive species.

Objectors argued that the TPO conflicted with government guidance on invasive species and that the tree had questionable amenity and ecological value. They suggested an offset strategy involving new planting. The council's Arboricultural Officer responded that the classification of the tree as invasive did not preclude its protection by a TPO if it had significant amenity value, which this tree was considered to have. The officer also stated that the evidence provided to support claims of structural damage was insufficient.

The committee confirmed the TPO, meaning it will remain in effect permanently, unless a future application for its removal is made and considered on its merits.