Planning application · Lambeth
23/01818/FUL.
311 Leigham Court Road London Lambeth SW16 2RX
Full / Other Planning at 311 Leigham Court Road London Lambeth SW16 2RX, received 9 Jun 2023 — refused on 4 Aug 2023 (delegated, Scott Stevens).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Aug 2023
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
13
Documents
13 linked
3
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 two storey rear extension.
Reference
23/01818/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW16 2RX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Jun 2023
Target date
4 Aug 2023
Decision date
4 Aug 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/01818/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW16 2RX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Jun 2023
Target date
4 Aug 2023
Decision date
4 Aug 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 4 Aug 2023, delegated decision by Scott Stevens — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Jun 2023
Application received
4 Aug 2023
Statutory target date
4 Aug 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Scott Stevens
9 Jun 2023
Application received
4 Aug 2023
Statutory target date
4 Aug 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Scott Stevens
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The design and massing of the proposed developed would result in an overly dominant and unsympathetic
addition to the host dwelling and the wider rear-of-terrace setting. The proposal would fail to be subservient to the
host property and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the local context. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021)
2
The proposed development, by virtue of its height, scale, mass and siting would be detrimental to the
amenity of neighbouring occupiers (309 and 313 Leigham Court Road) as a result of an unacceptable increased
sense of enclosure and unacceptable loss of outlook. In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
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
proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss to light access. The proposed would therefore result in an
unneighbourly development contrary to policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021)
1
The design and massing of the proposed developed would result in an overly dominant and unsympathetic
addition to the host dwelling and the wider rear-of-terrace setting. The proposal would fail to be subservient to the
host property and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the local context. The
proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021)
2
The proposed development, by virtue of its height, scale, mass and siting would be detrimental to the
amenity of neighbouring occupiers (309 and 313 Leigham Court Road) as a result of an unacceptable increased
sense of enclosure and unacceptable loss of outlook. In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
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
proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss to light access. The proposed would therefore result in an
unneighbourly development contrary to policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021)
Policies cited
Q5Q7Q8Q11Q2
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
3
Objections
3
In support
0
Total comments
3
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.