Planning application · Hackney
2025/1831.
125 Dalston Lane, Hackney, London, E8 1AL
Householder at 125 Dalston Lane, Hackney, London, E8 1AL, received 15 Aug 2025 — refused on 8 Dec 2025 (delegated, Lasse Lottgen).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationHackney profile →
Refused
Outcome
8 Dec 2025
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
—
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?
Proposed single-storey side and rear extensions
Reference
2025/1831
Type
Householder Planning
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
15 Aug 2025
Validated
18 Aug 2025
Target date
13 Oct 2025
Decision date
8 Dec 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Final Decision
Premises record
Council register
Reference
2025/1831
Type
Householder Planning
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
15 Aug 2025
Validated
18 Aug 2025
Target date
13 Oct 2025
Decision date
8 Dec 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 8 Dec 2025, delegated decision by Lasse Lottgen — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
15 Aug 2025
Application received
18 Aug 2025
Application validated
13 Oct 2025
Statutory target date
8 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Lasse Lottgen
15 Aug 2025
Application received
18 Aug 2025
Application validated
13 Oct 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
8 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Lasse Lottgen
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic
scale, bulk, location and detailed design, would comprise an
incongruous, discordant and overly-prominent form of
development, which would fail to conserve or enhance the
significance of the locally listed application site, adjoining locally
listed terrace and the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed
Chalmar House. As such the proposed development is considered
contrary to policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-
led approach), D4 (Delivering Good Design) and HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan 2021, policy LP1
(Design Quality and Local Character), LP3 (Designated Heritage
Assets) and LP4 (Non Designated Heritage Assets) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2033 and the NPPF.
Date of Decision: 08-12-2025
1
The proposed development, by reason of its unsympathetic
scale, bulk, location and detailed design, would comprise an
incongruous, discordant and overly-prominent form of
development, which would fail to conserve or enhance the
significance of the locally listed application site, adjoining locally
listed terrace and the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed
Chalmar House. As such the proposed development is considered
contrary to policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-
led approach), D4 (Delivering Good Design) and HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan 2021, policy LP1
(Design Quality and Local Character), LP3 (Designated Heritage
Assets) and LP4 (Non Designated Heritage Assets) of the
Hackney Local Plan 2033 and the NPPF.
Date of Decision: 08-12-2025
Policies cited
NPPF
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.