A Westminster Council planning committee unanimously rejected plans to add nine flats to the roof of a Maida Vale mansion block on Tuesday night.

Developers Park City Ltd hoped to convert loft space and increase the building’s height in order to add new homes to Lauderdale Mansions West.

But Councillors said they had heard a slew of objections from local people and understood their concerns.

Westminster officers had recommended rejecting the scheme, but only on the grounds that it did not offer enough new housing.

READ MORE: Controversial plan for flats on roof of Maida Vale mansion block returnsThe four-man planning sub-committee argued this didn’t go far enough, and said the design of the proposed new flats and “poor quality” internal space should also be cited as additional reasons to reject the plans for the block in Lauderdale Road.

Cllr Robert Rigby (Con, Regent’s Park), chairing the committee, said: “Clearly the residential density doesn’t agree with our policies, and we have these policies in place for a reason.”

The councillors also criticised what they saw as a lack of local consultation and concerns as to the increased density of homes in the area.

Objectors included a number of residents in the building including its leaseholder management company, along with local councillor Cllr Geoff Barraclough and the Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society.

Sir Allan Green, a leaseholder at Lauderdale Mansions West, told the committee: “There’s been insufficient consideration of the mansion block’s parlous structural state and the impact of an additional floor on that structure.”

He pointed to two episodes of subsidence damage across the last thirty years, most recently in 2017.

Cllr Barraclough had told the meeting he and his fellow local councillors had heard “widespread” criticism of the scheme from people living in and near Lauderdale Mansions West.

He added: “A small number of badly designed new flats don’t outweigh the damage.”

John Zealley from the Paddington Waterways and Maida Vale Society concurred, and said: “We believe this proposal will result in damage not just to the building but to the wider conservation area. We believe it’s important to safeguard the importance of that conservation area by rejecting this.”

He added the society agreed the quality of the flats was not appropriate.

There was no representation from Park City Ltd at the meeting.