Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasGreenwichPLUMSTEAD & GLYNDON ward26/0097/F
Planning application · Greenwich

26/0097/F.

LAKEDALE POWER TOOLS, 217 -223 PLUMSTEAD HIGH STREET, PLUMSTEAD, LONDON, SE18 1HE

Full / Other Planning at LAKEDALE POWER TOOLS, 217 -223 PLUMSTEAD HIGH STREET, PLUMSTEAD, LONDON, SE18 1HE, received 13 Jan 2026 — refused on 5 Jun 2026 (delegated, Brendan Meade).

GreenwichPLUMSTEAD & GLYNDONSE18 1HE26/0097/F
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationGreenwich profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Jun 2026
20 wks
Decision time
12 wks over the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
23
Documents
23 linked
1
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?

Change of use at basement, ground floor and first floor levels and of building at rear from commercial (Use Class E) to residential (Use Class C3) to faciliate the creation of 7 new flats and partial retention of Use Class E at ground floor, in addition to the creation of a lightwell and staircase access to basement level, shopfront alterations, provision of balconies and amenity spaces at rear, boundary treatment, provision of waste and cycle storage and all other associated alterations (Revised description)

Reference
26/0097/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE18 1HE
Council
Received
13 Jan 2026
Validated
28 Jan 2026
Target date
25 Mar 2026
Decision date
5 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Reference
26/0097/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE18 1HE
Council
Received
13 Jan 2026
Validated
28 Jan 2026
Target date
25 Mar 2026
Decision date
5 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Officers delegated report
5 Jun 2026
Decision notice
5 Jun 2026
Pl103 a
2 Feb 2026
Pl101 a.
2 Feb 2026
Revised
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 408629
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 409620.
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 409934
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - ln153133
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - ln95200.
2 Feb 2026
Officers delegated report
5 Jun 2026
Decision notice
5 Jun 2026
Pl103 a
2 Feb 2026
Show all 10 rows
Pl101 a.
2 Feb 2026
Revised
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 408629
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 409620.
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - 409934
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - ln153133
2 Feb 2026
Gab0020016 official copy title plan - ln95200.
2 Feb 2026

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 5 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Brendan Meade — 20 weeks from submission (12 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
13 Jan 2026
Application received
28 Jan 2026
Application validated
25 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
5 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Brendan Meade
13 Jan 2026
Application received
28 Jan 2026
Application validated
25 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Brendan Meade

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the loss of the prominent corner element and active retail frontage along Kashgar Road, would fail to maximise the commercial potential of the retained retail unit within an established neighbourhood parade. The proposal would therefore undermine the vitality and viability of the retained shopping unit within an established neighbourhood parade. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SD6 and E9 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CH1 and TC7 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014).
2
By reason of the insufficient outlook and privacy provided for the unit within the converted rear outbuilding, the unacceptable light provided for both lower ground floor units and the insufficient privacy provided for the outdoor amenity space serving the lower ground floor unit to the rear of no. 221 and 223 Plumstead High Street, the proposed development would fail to provide a suitable quality of accommodation for all future occupiers. Consequently, the proposed development would not be compliant with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5 and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard (2015), the London Housing SPG (2016).
3
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on car parking stress within the surrounding street network contrary to Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies IM4 and IM(c) of the Core Strategy (2021).
1
The proposed development, by reason of the loss of the prominent corner element and active retail frontage along Kashgar Road, would fail to maximise the commercial potential of the retained retail unit within an established neighbourhood parade. The proposal would therefore undermine the vitality and viability of the retained shopping unit within an established neighbourhood parade. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy SD6 and E9 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CH1 and TC7 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014).
2
By reason of the insufficient outlook and privacy provided for the unit within the converted rear outbuilding, the unacceptable light provided for both lower ground floor units and the insufficient privacy provided for the outdoor amenity space serving the lower ground floor unit to the rear of no. 221 and 223 Plumstead High Street, the proposed development would fail to provide a suitable quality of accommodation for all future occupiers. Consequently, the proposed development would not be compliant with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5 and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard (2015), the London Housing SPG (2016).
3
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on car parking stress within the surrounding street network contrary to Policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies IM4 and IM(c) of the Core Strategy (2021).
Policies cited
SD6E9CH1TC7D6H5DH1T6T6.1IM4IM(c)

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.