Planning application · Lambeth
24/00112/FUL.
Vicarage 12 Moat Place London SW9 0TA
Full / Other Planning at Vicarage 12 Moat Place London SW9 0TA, received 11 Jan 2024 — refused on 19 Jun 2024 (delegated, Felicia Onabanjo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Jun 2024
23 wks
Decision time
15 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
30
Documents
30 linked
1
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?
Demolition of the residential building and erection of a 4 storey building to provide 9 residential units (3 x 1-bed, 2 x 2-bed, 3 x 3-bed and 1x 2-bed maisonette), together with provision of cycle and refuse storage, communal amenity space, landscaping and boundary treatment.
Reference
24/00112/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW9 0TA
Ward
Council
Received
11 Jan 2024
Validated
27 Mar 2024
Target date
19 Jun 2024
Decision date
19 Jun 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/00112/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW9 0TA
Ward
Council
Received
11 Jan 2024
Validated
27 Mar 2024
Target date
19 Jun 2024
Decision date
19 Jun 2024
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 19 Jun 2024, delegated decision by Felicia Onabanjo — 23 weeks from submission (15 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
11 Jan 2024
Application received
27 Mar 2024
Application validated
19 Jun 2024
Statutory target date
19 Jun 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
11 Jan 2024
Application received
27 Mar 2024
Application validated
19 Jun 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Jun 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed 1bedroom flats and the duplex 2bedroom flats lack in-built storage and the areas of the in-
built storage within Flats: 2,4, 6 and 8 fall below the minimum floorspace housing standards required for new
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
dwellings. In these respects, the proposal is contrary to the provisions, aims and objectives of Policy H5 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).
2
In the absence of a noise impact assessment report, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the noise
levels likely to be generated from the proposed air source heat pumps would not have an adverse impact on the
amenities of future occupiers of the new dwellings and existing residents in neighbouring properties in terms of
noise and general disturbance As such the proposal is contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and
Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed four-storey building by reason of its scale, mass and layout would result in the
overdevelopment of this constrained site. This evidenced by the front building line of the building, which would
leave limited defence space in relation to the adjacent highway and the overbearing sense of enclosure on Moat
Place that would detract from the surrounding townscape. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies Q2,
Q5, Q6 and Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the Lambeth
Design Guide (2023).
4
Due to the siting, layout and scale of the proposed four-storey building in close proximity to adjacent land,
particularly No. 113-115 Stockwell Road, the proposed development would have the potential to prejudice the
future redevelopment of these sites contrary to Policy Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
In the absence of accurate and detailed plans that show the location and size of the proposed air source
heat pumps, the local planning authority has not been able to assess impact of this aspect of the development on
the appearance of the proposed building and its context as required under Policies Q2, Q5, Q6 and Q7 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Design Guide (2023).
6
The proposed four-storey building by reason of its scale, massing and siting would have an adverse impact
on residential amenity of the occupiers of Nos.113-115 Stockwell Road, particularly the residential unit located at
second-floor level, by reason of an overbearing sense of enclosure created by the development. In addition,
insufficient information was provided within the supporting Daylight and Sunlight report regarding the levels of
daylight and sunlight received at this neighbouring property with the new building in situ. As such the proposed
development would be contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies D13 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021).
7
In the absence of an archaeological desk-based assessment, the proposal has failed to provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that the scheme has taken into consideration unidentified heritage assets of
archaeological interest under the ground. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy Q23 of the Lambeth
Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).
8
In the absence of a Fire Statement the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the internal layout of the
development would minimise the risk of injury and spread of fire as required under the provisions of Policy D12 of
the London Plan (2021).
9
In the absence of the applicant's agreement to pay for the requisite technical assessment of the submitted
supporting statements on sustainability and the energy, the local planning authority has been unable to determine
whether the development has achieved the target of be lean, be green, be clean and be seen in accordance with
Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies SI 2, SI 3 and SI 4 of the London Plan (2021).
10
In the absence of an arboricultural impact assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the layout and
scale of the development would not have an adverse impact on the future growth of the retained trees and the
visual amenity of the public realm. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that measures to protect retained trees
on adjacent land during construction would be put in place nor that adequate and appropriate planting has been
considered during the scheme design. In these respects, the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of Policies EN1, Q2, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy G7 of the London
Plan (2021).
11
In the absence of detailed plans of the provision for cycle parking, it has not been demonstrated that the
total number of long and short stay cycle spaces would be accommodated within the proposed cycle store and
conveniently located in a safe and covered place for the future occupiers of the development and visitors. As such
the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with Policies Q13 and T3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and
Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and the London Cycle Design Standards (2015).
12
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, T1 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).
1
The proposed 1bedroom flats and the duplex 2bedroom flats lack in-built storage and the areas of the in-
built storage within Flats: 2,4, 6 and 8 fall below the minimum floorspace housing standards required for new
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
dwellings. In these respects, the proposal is contrary to the provisions, aims and objectives of Policy H5 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).
2
In the absence of a noise impact assessment report, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the noise
levels likely to be generated from the proposed air source heat pumps would not have an adverse impact on the
amenities of future occupiers of the new dwellings and existing residents in neighbouring properties in terms of
noise and general disturbance As such the proposal is contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and
Policy D14 of the London Plan (2021).
3
The proposed four-storey building by reason of its scale, mass and layout would result in the
overdevelopment of this constrained site. This evidenced by the front building line of the building, which would
leave limited defence space in relation to the adjacent highway and the overbearing sense of enclosure on Moat
Place that would detract from the surrounding townscape. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies Q2,
Q5, Q6 and Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the Lambeth
Design Guide (2023).
Show all 12 rows
4
Due to the siting, layout and scale of the proposed four-storey building in close proximity to adjacent land,
particularly No. 113-115 Stockwell Road, the proposed development would have the potential to prejudice the
future redevelopment of these sites contrary to Policy Q7 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
5
In the absence of accurate and detailed plans that show the location and size of the proposed air source
heat pumps, the local planning authority has not been able to assess impact of this aspect of the development on
the appearance of the proposed building and its context as required under Policies Q2, Q5, Q6 and Q7 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Lambeth Design Guide (2023).
6
The proposed four-storey building by reason of its scale, massing and siting would have an adverse impact
on residential amenity of the occupiers of Nos.113-115 Stockwell Road, particularly the residential unit located at
second-floor level, by reason of an overbearing sense of enclosure created by the development. In addition,
insufficient information was provided within the supporting Daylight and Sunlight report regarding the levels of
daylight and sunlight received at this neighbouring property with the new building in situ. As such the proposed
development would be contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies D13 and D14 of the
London Plan (2021).
7
In the absence of an archaeological desk-based assessment, the proposal has failed to provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that the scheme has taken into consideration unidentified heritage assets of
archaeological interest under the ground. In this respect the proposal is contrary to Policy Q23 of the Lambeth
Local Plan, Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).
8
In the absence of a Fire Statement the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the internal layout of the
development would minimise the risk of injury and spread of fire as required under the provisions of Policy D12 of
the London Plan (2021).
9
In the absence of the applicant's agreement to pay for the requisite technical assessment of the submitted
supporting statements on sustainability and the energy, the local planning authority has been unable to determine
whether the development has achieved the target of be lean, be green, be clean and be seen in accordance with
Policy EN4 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policies SI 2, SI 3 and SI 4 of the London Plan (2021).
10
In the absence of an arboricultural impact assessment, it has not been demonstrated that the layout and
scale of the development would not have an adverse impact on the future growth of the retained trees and the
visual amenity of the public realm. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that measures to protect retained trees
on adjacent land during construction would be put in place nor that adequate and appropriate planting has been
considered during the scheme design. In these respects, the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of Policies EN1, Q2, Q9 and Q10 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and Policy G7 of the London
Plan (2021).
11
In the absence of detailed plans of the provision for cycle parking, it has not been demonstrated that the
total number of long and short stay cycle spaces would be accommodated within the proposed cycle store and
conveniently located in a safe and covered place for the future occupiers of the development and visitors. As such
the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with Policies Q13 and T3 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and
Policy T5 of the London Plan (2021) and the London Cycle Design Standards (2015).
12
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, T1 and T7 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and Policy T6 of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
H5D6Q2D14Q5Q6Q7D3D13Q23HC1NPPFD12EN4SI2SI3SI4EN1Q9Q10G7Q13T3T5D4T1T7T6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
1
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.