Planning application · Lambeth
22/02082/FUL.
30 - 32 Queenstown Road London SW8 3RX
Full / Other Planning at 30 - 32 Queenstown Road London SW8 3RX, received 8 Jun 2022 — refused on 22 Aug 2022 (delegated, Felicia Onabanjo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 Aug 2022
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 linked
0
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?
Erection of a mansard roof extension with 2 front doors and 2 rear dormer windows and a front and central green roof with the erection of a single storey rear extension over the outrigger and the removal of a second-floor rear window for a French door with a Juliet balcony - Flat B, 32 Queenstown Road.
Reference
22/02082/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW8 3RX
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jun 2022
Validated
27 Jun 2022
Target date
22 Aug 2022
Decision date
22 Aug 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
22/02082/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW8 3RX
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jun 2022
Validated
27 Jun 2022
Target date
22 Aug 2022
Decision date
22 Aug 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 22 Aug 2022, delegated decision by Felicia Onabanjo — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Jun 2022
Application received
27 Jun 2022
Application validated
22 Aug 2022
Statutory target date
22 Aug 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
8 Jun 2022
Application received
27 Jun 2022
Application validated
22 Aug 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
22 Aug 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed mansard roof extension by reason of its design, scale, form and layout would be an
incongruous feature that fails to accord with the design guidance for constructing a traditional mansard roof
extension. A central courtyard at roof level would cause further harm to the locally distinct roofscape of the host
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
building and the short terrace row. Furthermore, the doors facilitating access on to the front roof terrace are
considered to be retrograde and they serve to harm the architectural integrity of the host building. The proposal
would not respond positively to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider terrace contrary to
Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD
(2015).
2
The proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level by reason of its scale and built form
would fail to terminate half a storey below the eaves of the host building. The proposal would result in an overly
dominant addition failing to be subordinate in context with the host building contrary to Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of
the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD (2015).
3
The proposed door unit with Juliet Balcony located in the rear elevation of the closet return by reason of its
style, proportion and size would unacceptably conflict with the fenestration arrangement at the host building and its
group. The development would fail to respect the character and appearance of the host building. The proposal
would be contrary to Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and
Extensions SPD (2015).
4
In the absence of a BRE compliant Daylight and Sunlight report, the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level would not result in a loss of daylight and
sunlight to the occupiers of the adjacent properties 28 and 32 Queenstown Road.
5
The proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level, due to its height, bulk and massing,
would result in the reduction of outlook and cause an undue sense of enclosure to the occupiers of the adjacent
properties at nos. 28 and 32 Queenstown Road.
1
The proposed mansard roof extension by reason of its design, scale, form and layout would be an
incongruous feature that fails to accord with the design guidance for constructing a traditional mansard roof
extension. A central courtyard at roof level would cause further harm to the locally distinct roofscape of the host
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
building and the short terrace row. Furthermore, the doors facilitating access on to the front roof terrace are
considered to be retrograde and they serve to harm the architectural integrity of the host building. The proposal
would not respond positively to the character and appearance of the host building and the wider terrace contrary to
Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD
(2015).
2
The proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level by reason of its scale and built form
would fail to terminate half a storey below the eaves of the host building. The proposal would result in an overly
dominant addition failing to be subordinate in context with the host building contrary to Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of
the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and Extensions SPD (2015).
3
The proposed door unit with Juliet Balcony located in the rear elevation of the closet return by reason of its
style, proportion and size would unacceptably conflict with the fenestration arrangement at the host building and its
group. The development would fail to respect the character and appearance of the host building. The proposal
would be contrary to Policies Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Building Alterations and
Extensions SPD (2015).
Show all 5 rows
4
In the absence of a BRE compliant Daylight and Sunlight report, the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level would not result in a loss of daylight and
sunlight to the occupiers of the adjacent properties 28 and 32 Queenstown Road.
5
The proposed addition to the rear closet extension at third floor level, due to its height, bulk and massing,
would result in the reduction of outlook and cause an undue sense of enclosure to the occupiers of the adjacent
properties at nos. 28 and 32 Queenstown Road.
Policies cited
Q5Q8Q11
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.