Planning application · Lambeth
24/01042/FUL.
620-626 Streatham High Road London Lambeth SW16 3QJ
Full / Other Planning at 620-626 Streatham High Road London Lambeth SW16 3QJ, received 2 Apr 2024 — refused on 18 Jul 2024 (delegated, Stephen Barnes).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Jul 2024
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
35
Documents
35 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 three storey extension to create 8 x flats, reconfiguring refuse and cycle stores, provision of living roof, formation of soft landscaping and roof terraces for each unit (scheme incorporates the same works as those approved under prior approval: 20/04110/P20).
Reference
24/01042/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW16 3QJ
Council
Received
2 Apr 2024
Target date
19 Jul 2024
Decision date
18 Jul 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
24/01042/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW16 3QJ
Council
Received
2 Apr 2024
Target date
19 Jul 2024
Decision date
18 Jul 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 18 Jul 2024, delegated decision by Stephen Barnes — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Apr 2024
Application received
19 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
18 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Stephen Barnes
2 Apr 2024
Application received
19 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
18 Jul 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Stephen Barnes
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development by virtue of height, bulk, detailed design and use of materials would harm the
appearance of the individual building and the character of the surrounding townscape. As such the proposal is
contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
2
In the absence of supporting information relating to the proposed lift and fire safety, the proposals fail to
demonstrate the highest standards of fire safety can be achieved. As such, the proposal fails to comply with
policies D5 and D12 of the London Plan (2021) and policy D3 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
3
In the absence of an enforceable mechanism to secure planning obligations required to mitigate the
impacts of this development, the proposal would fail to promote the up-take of sustainable modes of travel and
reduce dependence on the private car. Those obligations are: redundant footway crossover removal, financial
contribution towards the consultation on and implementation of a CPZ, provision of car and cycle hire
memberships. This is contrary to Policies D4, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021), Policies T5
and T6 of the London Plan (2021) which seek to promote sustainable modes of travel.
1
The proposed development by virtue of height, bulk, detailed design and use of materials would harm the
appearance of the individual building and the character of the surrounding townscape. As such the proposal is
contrary to policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
2
In the absence of supporting information relating to the proposed lift and fire safety, the proposals fail to
demonstrate the highest standards of fire safety can be achieved. As such, the proposal fails to comply with
policies D5 and D12 of the London Plan (2021) and policy D3 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021).
3
In the absence of an enforceable mechanism to secure planning obligations required to mitigate the
impacts of this development, the proposal would fail to promote the up-take of sustainable modes of travel and
reduce dependence on the private car. Those obligations are: redundant footway crossover removal, financial
contribution towards the consultation on and implementation of a CPZ, provision of car and cycle hire
memberships. This is contrary to Policies D4, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021), Policies T5
and T6 of the London Plan (2021) which seek to promote sustainable modes of travel.
Policies cited
Q2Q5Q8Q11D5D12D3D4T3T6T5
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
0
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.