Planning application · Lambeth
23/00492/FUL.
64 Tulse Hill London Lambeth SW2 2PT
Full / Other Planning at 64 Tulse Hill London Lambeth SW2 2PT, received 15 Feb 2023 — refused on 21 Nov 2023 (delegated, George Hodgkinson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 Nov 2023
40 wks
Decision time
32 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
47
Documents
47 linked
2
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?
Conversion of a single dwelling into three flats (1x3 bedrooms, 1X2 bedrooms and 1x1 bedrooms) including the erection of a single storey rear extension, a hip to gable roof extension, erection of rear dormer, installation of 3 rooflights to the front and fenestration alterations including opening up of windows in flanking elevation.
Reference
23/00492/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 2PT
Council
Received
15 Feb 2023
Validated
4 May 2023
Target date
14 Sep 2023
Decision date
21 Nov 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/00492/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 2PT
Council
Received
15 Feb 2023
Validated
4 May 2023
Target date
14 Sep 2023
Decision date
21 Nov 2023
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 21 Nov 2023, delegated decision by George Hodgkinson — 40 weeks from submission (32 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
15 Feb 2023
Application received
4 May 2023
Application validated
14 Sep 2023
Statutory target date
21 Nov 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · George Hodgkinson
15 Feb 2023
Application received
4 May 2023
Application validated
14 Sep 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 Nov 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · George Hodgkinson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed second floor unit, Flat 03, fails to provide an acceptable level of external amenity space for
future occupants and the proposed gross internal area of the units is not sufficient in being able to provide
additional internal living space equivalent to the shortfall of external amenity space and therefore provides a
substandard level of accommodation. This is contrary to Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D6
of the London Plan (2021).
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
2
In the absence of any existing and proposed section drawings, it has not been demonstrated that a
minimum ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the gross internal area of the proposed development is
attainable. This is contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).
3
Insufficient details have been provided of any potential screening or safety measures to the first-floor roof
to enable officers to undertake a full assessment on the suitability of the design, materials, bulk, massing and
impact on visual amenity of such measures contrary to policies Q2, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
4
The proposed rear dormer by way of the cut-out to form the terrace is considered to introduce an
incongruous built form to the rear roof slope of the property which would be highly visible from Athlone Road and
fails to respect the architectural integrity of the host building and established character of the terrace and area. As
such, it is considered to be contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the
Lambeth Design Guide SPD (2023).
5
The proposed central terraced area set within the proposed rear dormer, would unacceptably impact the
privacy of the users of the rear garden at Flat 01, 64 Tulse Hill and the rear garden of 66 Tulse Hill by reason of
overlooking and perceived overlooking. contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
6
The proposed door at first floor on the rear elevation forms an incongruous addition that fails to respond
positively to the original architecture and fenestration of the host building or the character and appearance of the
terrace and wider area, contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the
Lambeth Design Guide SPD (2023).
7
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or other legal agreement securing appropriate mitigation by
restricting future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone,
providing car club membership and cycle hire scheme, the proposed development would likely exacerbate existing
parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway network. The application is therefore contrary to
Policies D4 and T1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).
1
The proposed second floor unit, Flat 03, fails to provide an acceptable level of external amenity space for
future occupants and the proposed gross internal area of the units is not sufficient in being able to provide
additional internal living space equivalent to the shortfall of external amenity space and therefore provides a
substandard level of accommodation. This is contrary to Policy H5 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D6
of the London Plan (2021).
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
2
In the absence of any existing and proposed section drawings, it has not been demonstrated that a
minimum ceiling height of 2.5m for at least 75% of the gross internal area of the proposed development is
attainable. This is contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).
3
Insufficient details have been provided of any potential screening or safety measures to the first-floor roof
to enable officers to undertake a full assessment on the suitability of the design, materials, bulk, massing and
impact on visual amenity of such measures contrary to policies Q2, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
Show all 7 rows
4
The proposed rear dormer by way of the cut-out to form the terrace is considered to introduce an
incongruous built form to the rear roof slope of the property which would be highly visible from Athlone Road and
fails to respect the architectural integrity of the host building and established character of the terrace and area. As
such, it is considered to be contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the
Lambeth Design Guide SPD (2023).
5
The proposed central terraced area set within the proposed rear dormer, would unacceptably impact the
privacy of the users of the rear garden at Flat 01, 64 Tulse Hill and the rear garden of 66 Tulse Hill by reason of
overlooking and perceived overlooking. contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
6
The proposed door at first floor on the rear elevation forms an incongruous addition that fails to respond
positively to the original architecture and fenestration of the host building or the character and appearance of the
terrace and wider area, contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the
Lambeth Design Guide SPD (2023).
7
In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking or other legal agreement securing appropriate mitigation by
restricting future occupiers of the development from obtaining parking permits within the Controlled Parking Zone,
providing car club membership and cycle hire scheme, the proposed development would likely exacerbate existing
parking stress and congestion on the surrounding highway network. The application is therefore contrary to
Policies D4 and T1 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
H5D6Q2Q8Q11Q5D4T1T6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
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.