Planning application · Greenwich
25/2625/F.
105 KINGSMAN STREET, WOOLWICH, LONDON, SE18 5QF
Full / Other Planning at 105 KINGSMAN STREET, WOOLWICH, LONDON, SE18 5QF, received 13 Aug 2025 — refused on 28 Oct 2025 (delegated, Brendan Meade).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationGreenwich profile →
Refused
Outcome
28 Oct 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 linked
0
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 rear dormer and front rooflights to facilitate the change of use of a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to six bedroom HMO with a maximum capacity of six persons (Use Class C4)
Reference
25/2625/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE18 5QF
Council
Received
13 Aug 2025
Validated
2 Sep 2025
Target date
28 Oct 2025
Decision date
28 Oct 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/2625/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE18 5QF
Council
Received
13 Aug 2025
Validated
2 Sep 2025
Target date
28 Oct 2025
Decision date
28 Oct 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 28 Oct 2025, delegated decision by Brendan Meade — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Aug 2025
Application received
2 Sep 2025
Application validated
28 Oct 2025
Statutory target date
28 Oct 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Brendan Meade
13 Aug 2025
Application received
2 Sep 2025
Application validated
28 Oct 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
28 Oct 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Brendan Meade
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed dormer, by reason of its excessive scale, full-width nature, and its detailed
design, would constitute an unsympathetic and overwhelming development which would
fail to complement or enhance the existing building or the wider area generally.
Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London
Plan (2023) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core
Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Council's Urban Design Guidance SPD
(2023).
2
Insufficient details of the kitchenette and communal kitchen facilities have been
submitted, to establish whether sufficient facilities and space would be provided and
ensure an appropriate living environment for prospective occupiers of this HMO. As
such, the proposal fails to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan, policy H5 of the
Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014), the Council's
Urban Design Guidance SPD (2023) and the Council's HMO Standards (2019).
3
By virtue of its location directly above Bedroom 5, it is considered that the kitchenette
within bedroom 6 in the loft floor of the development would result in unacceptable noise
impacts on the sleeping accommodation of this bedroom.. Accordingly, the development
would be contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy H5 and DH1 of the Royal
Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014), the Council's Urban
Design Guidance SPD (2023) and the Council's HMO Standards (2019).
4
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the location of the upper
floor kitchen located close to the shared boundary with no.107 Kingsman Road would
not cause any unacceptable transmission of noise/vibration to the sleeping
accommodation at 1st floor level serving this adjoining property. As such, the proposal is
not considered to demonstrate that it would preserve the amenity of the neighbouring
occupiers, in accordance with Policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) and
Policies E(a) and DH(b) of the adopted Core Strategy and Detailed Policies (2014).
1
The proposed dormer, by reason of its excessive scale, full-width nature, and its detailed
design, would constitute an unsympathetic and overwhelming development which would
fail to complement or enhance the existing building or the wider area generally.
Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London
Plan (2023) and Policies DH1 and DH(a) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core
Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Council's Urban Design Guidance SPD
(2023).
2
Insufficient details of the kitchenette and communal kitchen facilities have been
submitted, to establish whether sufficient facilities and space would be provided and
ensure an appropriate living environment for prospective occupiers of this HMO. As
such, the proposal fails to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan, policy H5 of the
Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014), the Council's
Urban Design Guidance SPD (2023) and the Council's HMO Standards (2019).
3
By virtue of its location directly above Bedroom 5, it is considered that the kitchenette
within bedroom 6 in the loft floor of the development would result in unacceptable noise
impacts on the sleeping accommodation of this bedroom.. Accordingly, the development
would be contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, Policy H5 and DH1 of the Royal
Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014), the Council's Urban
Design Guidance SPD (2023) and the Council's HMO Standards (2019).
Show all 4 rows
4
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the location of the upper
floor kitchen located close to the shared boundary with no.107 Kingsman Road would
not cause any unacceptable transmission of noise/vibration to the sleeping
accommodation at 1st floor level serving this adjoining property. As such, the proposal is
not considered to demonstrate that it would preserve the amenity of the neighbouring
occupiers, in accordance with Policies D3 and D14 of the London Plan (2021) and
Policies E(a) and DH(b) of the adopted Core Strategy and Detailed Policies (2014).
Policies cited
D3DH1DH(a)D6H5D14E(a)DH(b)
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.