Planning application · Lambeth
22/01698/FUL.
Arches 187 And 191�Carlisle Lane London SE1 7LH
Full / Other Planning at Arches 187 And 191�Carlisle Lane London SE1 7LH, received 11 May 2022 — refused on 11 Oct 2022 (delegated, Michael Clawson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Oct 2022
22 wks
Decision time
14 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 linked
8
Objections
2 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?
Retrospective application for the use of Arches 187 and 191 as commercial kitchens together with associated external alterations and plants, including 1 extract duct, 1 air intake louvre to Arch 187 and 2 extract ducts and 2 air intake louvres to Arch 191.
Reference
22/01698/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE1 7LH
Council
Received
11 May 2022
Validated
7 Jun 2022
Target date
11 Oct 2022
Decision date
11 Oct 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/01698/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE1 7LH
Council
Received
11 May 2022
Validated
7 Jun 2022
Target date
11 Oct 2022
Decision date
11 Oct 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 11 Oct 2022, delegated decision by Michael Clawson — 22 weeks from submission (14 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 May 2022
Application received
7 Jun 2022
Application validated
11 Oct 2022
Statutory target date
11 Oct 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Clawson
11 May 2022
Application received
7 Jun 2022
Application validated
11 Oct 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
11 Oct 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Michael Clawson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The use by virtue of its nature, intensity and activity, in particular the volume and frequency of deliveries,
traffic generation and impact on traffic flow and road safety, causes harm to the amenity of the area in terms of
noise and disturbance, contributes towards opportunities to engage in anti-social behaviour to the detriment of
community safety and results in unacceptable pedestrian and highway safety impacts contrary to policies Q2
(Amenity), Q3 (Safety, crime prevention and counter terrorism), T2 (Walking), T3 (Cycling), T6 (Parking) and T7
(Servicing), ED6 (Railway arches) and ED8 (Evening economy and food and drink uses) of the Lambeth Local Plan
2020-2035, and Policy (T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of the London Plan 2021.
2
The submission has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the
development would provide a satisfactory provision of residual and recyclable waste storage in the interest of
amenity and would harm the setting of the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area. The
submission is contrary to policy Q12 (Refuse and recycling) and Q22 (Conservation Areas) of the Lambeth Local
Plan 2020-2035 and the council's Refuse and Recycling Storage Design Guide and Waste and Recycling Storage
and Collection Requirements - Technical Specifications for Architects and Developers.
3
The submission has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the
development would provide satisfactory cycle storage in the interest of sustainable transport, health and wellbeing.
The submission is contrary to policy T3 (Cycling) and Q13 (Cycle storage) of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035.
1
The use by virtue of its nature, intensity and activity, in particular the volume and frequency of deliveries,
traffic generation and impact on traffic flow and road safety, causes harm to the amenity of the area in terms of
noise and disturbance, contributes towards opportunities to engage in anti-social behaviour to the detriment of
community safety and results in unacceptable pedestrian and highway safety impacts contrary to policies Q2
(Amenity), Q3 (Safety, crime prevention and counter terrorism), T2 (Walking), T3 (Cycling), T6 (Parking) and T7
(Servicing), ED6 (Railway arches) and ED8 (Evening economy and food and drink uses) of the Lambeth Local Plan
2020-2035, and Policy (T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts) of the London Plan 2021.
2
The submission has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the
development would provide a satisfactory provision of residual and recyclable waste storage in the interest of
amenity and would harm the setting of the character and appearance of the adjoining conservation area. The
submission is contrary to policy Q12 (Refuse and recycling) and Q22 (Conservation Areas) of the Lambeth Local
Plan 2020-2035 and the council's Refuse and Recycling Storage Design Guide and Waste and Recycling Storage
and Collection Requirements - Technical Specifications for Architects and Developers.
3
The submission has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the
development would provide satisfactory cycle storage in the interest of sustainable transport, health and wellbeing.
The submission is contrary to policy T3 (Cycling) and Q13 (Cycle storage) of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035.
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
8
In support
2
Total comments
10
Objections
8
In support
2
Total comments
10
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.