Planning application · Lambeth
25/00469/FUL.
237 Brixton Hill London SW2 1NR
Full / Other Planning at 237 Brixton Hill London SW2 1NR, received 14 Feb 2025 — refused on 30 Apr 2025 (delegated, Felicia Onabanjo).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
30 Apr 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
33
Documents
33 linked
9
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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 single storey extension to the fourth floor to provide a one-bed residential unit with amenity space.
Reference
25/00469/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1NR
Council
Received
14 Feb 2025
Validated
27 Feb 2025
Target date
24 Apr 2025
Decision date
30 Apr 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/00469/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW2 1NR
Council
Received
14 Feb 2025
Validated
27 Feb 2025
Target date
24 Apr 2025
Decision date
30 Apr 2025
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 30 Apr 2025, delegated decision by Felicia Onabanjo — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
14 Feb 2025
Application received
27 Feb 2025
Application validated
24 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Appeal
Decided · Appeal Dismissed
14 Feb 2025
Application received
27 Feb 2025
Application validated
24 Apr 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
30 Apr 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Felicia Onabanjo
Appeal
Decided · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed fourth floor rear roof extension by reason of its siting, scale and form would result in an
incongruous and overly dominant addition that fails to achieve subordination. The development would fail to
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
respond to the character and appearance of the recently built host building by adding bulk albeit at the rear of the
building and harms the appearance of the block and its relationship between buildings within the locality which is
unacceptable. The proposal would be contrary to Policies Q2, Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan
2021 and Lambeth Design Guide 2023.
2
Insufficient information has been submitted to the Council in the form of a Fire Safety Statement to allow
officers to assess whether appropriate consideration has been given to the design of the development including the
internal layout of the unit to minimise the risk of fire spreading and the risk of injury. The proposal is thereby
contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021.
3
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 fourth floor rear roof extension by reason of its siting, scale and form would result in an
incongruous and overly dominant addition that fails to achieve subordination. The development would fail to
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
respond to the character and appearance of the recently built host building by adding bulk albeit at the rear of the
building and harms the appearance of the block and its relationship between buildings within the locality which is
unacceptable. The proposal would be contrary to Policies Q2, Q5, Q7, Q8 and Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan
2021 and Lambeth Design Guide 2023.
2
Insufficient information has been submitted to the Council in the form of a Fire Safety Statement to allow
officers to assess whether appropriate consideration has been given to the design of the development including the
internal layout of the unit to minimise the risk of fire spreading and the risk of injury. The proposal is thereby
contrary to Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021.
3
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
Q2Q5Q7Q8Q11D12D4T1T7T6
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Decided
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
9
In support
0
Total comments
9
Objections
9
In support
0
Total comments
9
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.