Planning application · Lambeth
20/02025/FUL.
Land Rear Of 472 Wandsworth Road London SW8
Full / Other Planning at Land Rear Of 472 Wandsworth Road London SW8, received 19 Jun 2020 — refused on 27 Apr 2021 (delegated, Jorge Nash).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2021
45 wks
Decision time
37 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 linked
43
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Lambeth 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?
Demolition of existing building on site and erection of new single storey building for use as tyre shop (Sui Generis) motorcycle repairs (B1c) and hot food takeaway (A5), amalgamation of site with part of building to the rear, change of use of part of building to the rear from Steel Shop (Use Class B1c) to tyre shop (Sui Generis), and associated alterations.
Reference
20/02025/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jun 2020
Validated
25 Jun 2020
Target date
8 Dec 2020
Decision date
27 Apr 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Reference
20/02025/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jun 2020
Validated
25 Jun 2020
Target date
8 Dec 2020
Decision date
27 Apr 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Lambeth portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 27 Apr 2021, delegated decision by Jorge Nash — 45 weeks from submission (37 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Jun 2020
Application received
25 Jun 2020
Application validated
8 Dec 2020
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jorge Nash
19 Jun 2020
Application received
25 Jun 2020
Application validated
8 Dec 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Apr 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jorge Nash
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) facility is unacceptable in principle as it is located within
400 metres of Heathbrook School contrary to the provisions of Policy ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
2
The proposed building(s) reason of its poor-quality design and construction, materials and detailing would
fail to make a positive response to the prevailing local character of the area and represent an incongruous form of
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 734 Facsimile 020 7926 1171
Winchester www.lambeth.gov.uk
SO23 5DG planning@lambeth.gov.uk
REFULZ
development. The application is therefore contrary to Policies Q5 and Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
3
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposals would not have
an adverse impact on residential amenity in terms of noise and vibrations, and fumes and odours. And in the
absence of a Noise Impact Assessment demonstrating that any proposed plant, machinery or extract flue would
not exceed background noise levels LA90 (15mins) when measured from windows of the nearest noise sensitive
receptors, the proposal is considered to result in undue noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential
units. The application is therefore contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
4
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposals would not have
an adverse transport impact or that the proposals would meet the requirements for car and cycle parking. The
application is therefore contrary to Policies T7 and Q13 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan
(2021).
5
In the absence of a unilateral undertaking or S106 legal agreement to remove eligibility of future
staff/employees to apply for car parking permits, the proposals would reduce the availability of on street parking
and therefore would be likely to exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway
network. The application is therefore contrary to Policies D4, T1, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
6
In the absence of satisfactory details relating to on-site provision for waste storage the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate waste storage facilities. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policies Q12 and ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
7
In the absence of a Delivery and Servicing Plan demonstrating how motorised vehicles will collect delivery
orders from the site as required by the delivery service plan, the proposal will likely result in a detriment impact on
the flow and safety of vehicular and pedestrian transport. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies T6, T8 and
ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
8
In the absence of a Sustainability Statement to illustrate how the scheme would meet the requirements of
the energy and sustainability targets as set out in the London Plan, the application has failed to demonstrate that
the development will minimise carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the requirements for non-residential
development. The application is therefore contrary to Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
9
In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS information the application has failed to
demonstrate how the development would minimise the impact on Flood Risk and surface water flooding. The
application is therefore contrary to Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
1
The proposed hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) facility is unacceptable in principle as it is located within
400 metres of Heathbrook School contrary to the provisions of Policy ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
2
The proposed building(s) reason of its poor-quality design and construction, materials and detailing would
fail to make a positive response to the prevailing local character of the area and represent an incongruous form of
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 734 Facsimile 020 7926 1171
Winchester www.lambeth.gov.uk
SO23 5DG planning@lambeth.gov.uk
REFULZ
development. The application is therefore contrary to Policies Q5 and Q8 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
3
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposals would not have
an adverse impact on residential amenity in terms of noise and vibrations, and fumes and odours. And in the
absence of a Noise Impact Assessment demonstrating that any proposed plant, machinery or extract flue would
not exceed background noise levels LA90 (15mins) when measured from windows of the nearest noise sensitive
receptors, the proposal is considered to result in undue noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby residential
units. The application is therefore contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
Show all 9 rows
4
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposals would not have
an adverse transport impact or that the proposals would meet the requirements for car and cycle parking. The
application is therefore contrary to Policies T7 and Q13 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015) and the London Plan
(2021).
5
In the absence of a unilateral undertaking or S106 legal agreement to remove eligibility of future
staff/employees to apply for car parking permits, the proposals would reduce the availability of on street parking
and therefore would be likely to exacerbate existing parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway
network. The application is therefore contrary to Policies D4, T1, T6 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
6
In the absence of satisfactory details relating to on-site provision for waste storage the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate waste storage facilities. The proposal is therefore
contrary to Policies Q12 and ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
7
In the absence of a Delivery and Servicing Plan demonstrating how motorised vehicles will collect delivery
orders from the site as required by the delivery service plan, the proposal will likely result in a detriment impact on
the flow and safety of vehicular and pedestrian transport. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies T6, T8 and
ED7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
8
In the absence of a Sustainability Statement to illustrate how the scheme would meet the requirements of
the energy and sustainability targets as set out in the London Plan, the application has failed to demonstrate that
the development will minimise carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the requirements for non-residential
development. The application is therefore contrary to Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
9
In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment and SUDS information the application has failed to
demonstrate how the development would minimise the impact on Flood Risk and surface water flooding. The
application is therefore contrary to Policies EN5 and EN6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2015).
Policies cited
ED7Q5Q8Q2T7Q13D4T1T6Q12T8EN4EN5EN6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
43
In support
0
Total comments
44
Objections
43
In support
0
Total comments
44
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.