Planning application · Lambeth
23/04070/FUL.
256A Brixton Hill London SW2 1HF
Full / Other Planning at 256A Brixton Hill London SW2 1HF, received 19 Dec 2023 — refused on 22 May 2024 (delegated, Christopher Poad).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 May 2024
22 wks
Decision time
14 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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?
Rear single storey extension and alterations to front section to provide improved first floor mezzanine accommodation to restaurant (flat A).
Reference
23/04070/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1HF
Ward
Council
Received
19 Dec 2023
Validated
13 Mar 2024
Target date
22 May 2024
Decision date
22 May 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
23/04070/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1HF
Ward
Council
Received
19 Dec 2023
Validated
13 Mar 2024
Target date
22 May 2024
Decision date
22 May 2024
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 22 May 2024, delegated decision by Christopher Poad — 22 weeks from submission (14 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
19 Dec 2023
Application received
13 Mar 2024
Application validated
22 May 2024
Statutory target date
22 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Poad
19 Dec 2023
Application received
13 Mar 2024
Application validated
22 May 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
22 May 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Christopher Poad
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
In the absence of details having been provided in terms of the scale, detailing and finish of the proposed
single storey extension with no cross-sections shown through the site, an informed decision cannot be reached that
the proposed development would not have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing
building and surrounding area, and the significance of the Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. The
proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policies Q5, Q8, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan
2020-2035 (2021).
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
2
By reason of the incongruous form of development as a result of the proposed first floor pitched roof
structure and balusters, which would be an uncharacteristic addition to the terrace, the proposed development
would materially detract from the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area and
would result in a low degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Rush Common and Brixton Hill
Conservation Area. This identified harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits. Accordingly, the proposed
development would conflict with Policies Q5, Q8, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and
the NPPF (2023).
3
The noise and disturbance associated with the use of the proposed first floor pitched roof structure to the
front of the premises, which would facilitate sitting, standing and gathering and provide views looking back towards
the upper floor windows within the site and to neighbouring properties would unacceptably harm the conditions of
occupiers of these neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policies Q2
and ED8 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
1
In the absence of details having been provided in terms of the scale, detailing and finish of the proposed
single storey extension with no cross-sections shown through the site, an informed decision cannot be reached that
the proposed development would not have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing
building and surrounding area, and the significance of the Rush Common and Brixton Hill Conservation Area. The
proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policies Q5, Q8, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan
2020-2035 (2021).
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
2
By reason of the incongruous form of development as a result of the proposed first floor pitched roof
structure and balusters, which would be an uncharacteristic addition to the terrace, the proposed development
would materially detract from the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area and
would result in a low degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the Rush Common and Brixton Hill
Conservation Area. This identified harm would not be outweighed by any public benefits. Accordingly, the proposed
development would conflict with Policies Q5, Q8, Q11 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and
the NPPF (2023).
3
The noise and disturbance associated with the use of the proposed first floor pitched roof structure to the
front of the premises, which would facilitate sitting, standing and gathering and provide views looking back towards
the upper floor windows within the site and to neighbouring properties would unacceptably harm the conditions of
occupiers of these neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with Policies Q2
and ED8 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
Policies cited
Q5Q8Q11Q22NPPFQ2ED8
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.