Planning application · Lambeth
21/04675/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 8 Rattray Road London SW2 1BD, received 2 Dec 2021 — refused on 26 Jan 2022 (delegated, Felicia Onabanjo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 Jan 2022
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 linked
0
Objections
1 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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?
Erection of a rear roof extension with juliet balcony and the installation of two front roof lights to the top floor flat.
Reference
21/04675/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1BD
Ward
Council
Received
2 Dec 2021
Target date
27 Jan 2022
Decision date
26 Jan 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
21/04675/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1BD
Ward
Council
Received
2 Dec 2021
Target date
27 Jan 2022
Decision date
26 Jan 2022
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 26 Jan 2022, delegated decision by Felicia Onabanjo — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Dec 2021
Application received
27 Jan 2022
Statutory target date
26 Jan 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Appeal
Decided · Appeal Dismissed
2 Dec 2021
Application received
27 Jan 2022
Statutory target date
26 Jan 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed dormer roof extension by reason of its scale, form, detailed design and mass would be an
overly dominant addition that would result in loss of the rear pitch slope and fail to achieve subordination to the
host building. As such the roof extension would not respond positively to the character and appearance of the host
building. The proposed front rooflights vary in size and fail to be in full alignment with fenestration below to the
detriment of the appearance of the building within the streetscene. In these respects, the proposal is contrary to the
provisions of Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the guidance contained in the
Council's adopted Building Alterations and Extension SPD (2015)
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
1
The proposed dormer roof extension by reason of its scale, form, detailed design and mass would be an
overly dominant addition that would result in loss of the rear pitch slope and fail to achieve subordination to the
host building. As such the roof extension would not respond positively to the character and appearance of the host
building. The proposed front rooflights vary in size and fail to be in full alignment with fenestration below to the
detriment of the appearance of the building within the streetscene. In these respects, the proposal is contrary to the
provisions of Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the guidance contained in the
Council's adopted Building Alterations and Extension SPD (2015)
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
Policies cited
Q5Q8Q11
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
1
Total comments
1
Objections
0
In support
1
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.