Planning application · Greenwich
20/0378/F.
29 BRAMSHOT AVENUE, CHARLTON, SE7
Full / Other Planning at 29 BRAMSHOT AVENUE, CHARLTON, SE7, received 5 Feb 2020 — refused on 30 Apr 2020 (delegated, Zeb McInnes).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationGreenwich profile →
Refused
Outcome
30 Apr 2020
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 linked
5
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Greenwich planning register as captured; documents link to the council's own files. Nearby applications are context, not part of this application.
Application
What is it?
Construction of a single storey dwellinghouse with basement.
Reference
20/0378/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
5 Feb 2020
Validated
5 Mar 2020
Target date
30 Apr 2020
Decision date
30 Apr 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
20/0378/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
5 Feb 2020
Validated
5 Mar 2020
Target date
30 Apr 2020
Decision date
30 Apr 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Greenwich portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 30 Apr 2020, delegated decision by Zeb McInnes — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Feb 2020
Application received
5 Mar 2020
Application validated
30 Apr 2020
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Zeb McInnes
5 Feb 2020
Application received
5 Mar 2020
Application validated
30 Apr 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
30 Apr 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Zeb McInnes
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By reason of the reliance of the communal access and area of external private
amenity space serving the building fronting onto Bramshot Avenue to access the
proposed dwelling, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable loss of
privacy to the residents of the main building and would result in a poor way of access
to the new development which is not considered to be independent, safe or secure.
As such, the means of access to the new dwelling is unacceptable and not
considered to be consistent with policies. As such, the proposal is not considered to
be consistent with policies 3.5, 7.3 and 7.6 of the adopted London Plan (2016) and
H5, H(c) and DH(b) of the adopted Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and
the Housing SPG (2016).
2
By reason of the poor internal layout, small internalised lightwell serving the lower
ground floor accommodation, the proposed lower ground floor accommodation would
receive minimal daylight and sunlight and outlook and as such is considered to
provide a poor quality of accommodation for future occupiers of the new
development. As such, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with policy 3.5 of
the adopted London Plan (2016) and policy H5 (Housing Design) of the adopted Core
Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Housing SPG (2016).
1
By reason of the reliance of the communal access and area of external private
amenity space serving the building fronting onto Bramshot Avenue to access the
proposed dwelling, the proposal is considered to result in an unacceptable loss of
privacy to the residents of the main building and would result in a poor way of access
to the new development which is not considered to be independent, safe or secure.
As such, the means of access to the new dwelling is unacceptable and not
considered to be consistent with policies. As such, the proposal is not considered to
be consistent with policies 3.5, 7.3 and 7.6 of the adopted London Plan (2016) and
H5, H(c) and DH(b) of the adopted Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and
the Housing SPG (2016).
2
By reason of the poor internal layout, small internalised lightwell serving the lower
ground floor accommodation, the proposed lower ground floor accommodation would
receive minimal daylight and sunlight and outlook and as such is considered to
provide a poor quality of accommodation for future occupiers of the new
development. As such, the proposal is considered to fail to comply with policy 3.5 of
the adopted London Plan (2016) and policy H5 (Housing Design) of the adopted Core
Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Housing SPG (2016).
Policies cited
London Plan 3.5London Plan 7.3London Plan 7.6H5H(c)DH(b)
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
5
In support
0
Total comments
5
Objections
5
In support
0
Total comments
5
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer — delegated decision
Place
What affects it?
Context around the site — not part of this application. Designations over the site: use the map's designations filter (conservation areas, listed buildings, Article 4, flood risk …). Decisions within 250 metres of the site are listed below — context, not this application.
Other applications within 250 metres (context — nearby, not this application)
No other geocoded decision is recorded within 250 metres.