Planning application · Hackney
2025/0553.
85 Ravensdale Road, Hackney, London, N16 6TH
Householder at 85 Ravensdale Road, Hackney, London, N16 6TH, received 10 Mar 2025 — refused on 20 Jun 2025 (delegated, Bronte Donato).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 Jun 2025
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
9
Documents
9 linked
1
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Hackney 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?
Ground floor rear extension and new front lightwell
Reference
2025/0553
Type
Householder Planning
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
10 Mar 2025
Target date
5 May 2025
Decision date
20 Jun 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Premises record
Council register
Reference
2025/0553
Type
Householder Planning
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
10 Mar 2025
Target date
5 May 2025
Decision date
20 Jun 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Hackney portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 20 Jun 2025, delegated decision by Bronte Donato — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
10 Mar 2025
Application received
5 May 2025
Statutory target date
20 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Bronte Donato
10 Mar 2025
Application received
5 May 2025
Statutory target date
20 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Bronte Donato
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed ground floor side and rear extension by reason of its size,
depth and scale, would result in a harmful impact on the amenities of the
neighbouring occupiers at No. 87 and No.83 Ravensdale Road by way of a
loss of outlook, loss of daylight and sunlight, and would have an overbearing
impact. As such, the proposed development is contrary to policies D6
(Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP2
(Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020), and the
guidance contained within Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations
SPD (2009).
2
The proposal, by reason of poor outlook and light serving the new
basement accommodation, would provide a sub-standard form of
accommodation to the detriment of future occupiers, contrary to policy D6
(Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP17
(Housing Design) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020), the Residential
Extensions and Alterations SPD 2009 and the Technical housing standards –
nationally described space standards 2015.
1
The proposed ground floor side and rear extension by reason of its size,
depth and scale, would result in a harmful impact on the amenities of the
neighbouring occupiers at No. 87 and No.83 Ravensdale Road by way of a
loss of outlook, loss of daylight and sunlight, and would have an overbearing
impact. As such, the proposed development is contrary to policies D6
(Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP2
(Development and Amenity) of the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (2020), and the
guidance contained within Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations
SPD (2009).
2
The proposal, by reason of poor outlook and light serving the new
basement accommodation, would provide a sub-standard form of
accommodation to the detriment of future occupiers, contrary to policy D6
(Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), policy LP17
(Housing Design) of the Hackney Local Plan LP33 (2020), the Residential
Extensions and Alterations SPD 2009 and the Technical housing standards –
nationally described space standards 2015.
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
Objections
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.