Planning application · Lambeth
21/02871/FUL.
20 Archbishop's Place London SW2 2AJ
Full / Other Planning at 20 Archbishop's Place London SW2 2AJ, received 19 Jul 2021 — refused on 27 Sep 2021 (delegated, Jeni Cowan).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Sep 2021
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Allowed
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?
Replacement of the existing roof and erection of a rear dormer roof extension with installation of 2no front rooflights.
Reference
21/02871/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 2AJ
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jul 2021
Target date
13 Sep 2021
Decision date
27 Sep 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/02871/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 2AJ
Ward
Council
Received
19 Jul 2021
Target date
13 Sep 2021
Decision date
27 Sep 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
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 Sep 2021, delegated decision by Jeni Cowan — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Jul 2021
Application received
13 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
27 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeni Cowan
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Allowed
19 Jul 2021
Application received
13 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
27 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Jeni Cowan
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal decided · Appeal Allowed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed roof extension by reason of its detailed design, in terms of the scale of windows and the lack
of set back of the recessed link, which would be prominent features appearing as an uncharacteristic, would create
an incongruent addition to the host property. The proposed development would unacceptably harm the character of
the property and would cause harm,albeit less than substantial, to the character and appearance of the Rush
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
Common Brixton Hill Conservation Area, that would not be outweigh by public benefits. The proposal is contrary to
Policies Q5, Q8, Q11, and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD
2015.
1
The proposed roof extension by reason of its detailed design, in terms of the scale of windows and the lack
of set back of the recessed link, which would be prominent features appearing as an uncharacteristic, would create
an incongruent addition to the host property. The proposed development would unacceptably harm the character of
the property and would cause harm,albeit less than substantial, to the character and appearance of the Rush
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
Common Brixton Hill Conservation Area, that would not be outweigh by public benefits. The proposal is contrary to
Policies Q5, Q8, Q11, and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2021 and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD
2015.
Policies cited
Q22
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
Appeal decided
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.