Planning application · Greenwich
26/0671/F.
ELTHAM GPO, 4 PASSEY PLACE, LONDON, SE9 5DQ
Full / Other Planning at ELTHAM GPO, 4 PASSEY PLACE, LONDON, SE9 5DQ, received 3 Mar 2026 — refused on 5 Jun 2026 (delegated, Brendan Meade).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationGreenwich profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Jun 2026
13 wks
Decision time
5 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
32
Documents
32 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 two-storey upward extension to facilitate the creation of seven (7) residential units (Use Class C3) together with internal cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage.
Reference
26/0671/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE9 5DQ
Council
Received
3 Mar 2026
Validated
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
5 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
26/0671/F
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE9 5DQ
Council
Received
3 Mar 2026
Validated
9 Apr 2026
Target date
4 Jun 2026
Decision date
5 Jun 2026
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 5 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Brendan Meade — 13 weeks from submission (5 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Application validated
4 Jun 2026
Statutory target date
5 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Brendan Meade
3 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Application validated
4 Jun 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
By reason of the insufficient outlook, light and privacy provided for Flat 5, the insufficient
outlook and light provided for Flat 3 and the insufficient outlook and light provided for Flat
2, 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).
2
The application submission fails to include section drawings going through the proposed
development and the developments approved at nos. 2 and 4 Chequers Parade nor a
Daylight/Sunlight Assessment on the light received by the approved front facing
habitable room windows of these developments. Due to this insufficient information,
officers raise concern on the impact that the development would have on the outlook,
daylight and privacy afforded to the future occupiers of these units. As such, the
development is not considered to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed
Policies (2014) and the Urban Design SPD (2023).
3
The application submission fails to include section drawings going through the proposed
development and the developments approved at no. 106 Eltham High Street nor a
Daylight/Sunlight Assessment on the light received by the rear facing habitable room
window and decking area of this development. Due to this insufficient information,
officers raise concern on the impact that the development would have on the outlook and
daylight afforded to the future occupiers of these units. As such, the development is not
considered to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy
DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014)
and the Urban Design SPD (2023).
1
By reason of the insufficient outlook, light and privacy provided for Flat 5, the insufficient
outlook and light provided for Flat 3 and the insufficient outlook and light provided for Flat
2, 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).
2
The application submission fails to include section drawings going through the proposed
development and the developments approved at nos. 2 and 4 Chequers Parade nor a
Daylight/Sunlight Assessment on the light received by the approved front facing
habitable room windows of these developments. Due to this insufficient information,
officers raise concern on the impact that the development would have on the outlook,
daylight and privacy afforded to the future occupiers of these units. As such, the
development is not considered to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan
(2021) and Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed
Policies (2014) and the Urban Design SPD (2023).
3
The application submission fails to include section drawings going through the proposed
development and the developments approved at no. 106 Eltham High Street nor a
Daylight/Sunlight Assessment on the light received by the rear facing habitable room
window and decking area of this development. Due to this insufficient information,
officers raise concern on the impact that the development would have on the outlook and
daylight afforded to the future occupiers of these units. As such, the development is not
considered to be in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy
DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014)
and the Urban Design SPD (2023).
Policies cited
D6H5DH1D3DH(b)
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
0
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.