Planning application · Lambeth
25/01781/FUL.
Full / Other Planning at 26 Groveway London SW9 0AR, received 30 May 2025 — refused on 10 Sep 2025 (delegated, Camilla Bebb).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Sep 2025
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
62
Documents
62 linked
18
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?
Enlargement and remodelling of the existing house, involving the erection of a five storey front extension (with basement level and a mansard roof), along with other associated alterations. (Please note: The reference number for this Listed Building Consent application is 25/02449/LB)
Reference
25/01781/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW9 0AR
Ward
Council
Received
30 May 2025
Validated
16 Jul 2025
Target date
10 Sep 2025
Decision date
10 Sep 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/01781/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW9 0AR
Ward
Council
Received
30 May 2025
Validated
16 Jul 2025
Target date
10 Sep 2025
Decision date
10 Sep 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 10 Sep 2025, delegated decision by Camilla Bebb — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
30 May 2025
Application received
16 Jul 2025
Application validated
10 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
10 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Camilla Bebb
30 May 2025
Application received
16 Jul 2025
Application validated
10 Sep 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
10 Sep 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Camilla Bebb
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed front extension, due to its excessive height, bulk and architectural detailing, fails to remain
subordinate to the host building and results in a visually dominant and disproportionate addition. The five-storey
front extension, combined with the existing two-storey house, creates a development that overwhelms the original
structure and detracts from its character. The proposal does not respect the scale, proportions or architectural
integrity of the host dwelling, contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q11, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
2
The retention of the existing two-storey rear section alongside the proposed front extension results in a
disjointed and incoherent site layout. The mismatch in scale, form and architectural style between the front and
rear elements creates a fragmented appearance that undermines the visual rhythm and spatial separation typical
of Groveway. The proposal disrupts the established townscape character and introduces a terrace-like form that
erodes the distinctiveness of the semi-detached and villa typology, contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q11, Q20 and Q22
of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
3
The proposal causes harm to the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area. The
development disrupts the symmetry of the semi-detached pair formed by Nos. 26 and 28 and introduces a hybrid
design that fails to reflect the form and spatial characteristics of the surrounding villas and terraces. This does not
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Policy Q20 and Q22 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Stockwell Park Conservation Area Statement.
4
Due to the height and massing of the proposed front extension along the shared boundary, and in the
absence of a submitted daylight and sunlight report, officers have no evidence to demonstrate that the proposal
would not result in an adverse impact on neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan.
As such, the development is contrary to Policies Q2, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), the NPPF,
and associated conservation guidance.
1
The proposed front extension, due to its excessive height, bulk and architectural detailing, fails to remain
subordinate to the host building and results in a visually dominant and disproportionate addition. The five-storey
front extension, combined with the existing two-storey house, creates a development that overwhelms the original
structure and detracts from its character. The proposal does not respect the scale, proportions or architectural
integrity of the host dwelling, contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q11, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
2
The retention of the existing two-storey rear section alongside the proposed front extension results in a
disjointed and incoherent site layout. The mismatch in scale, form and architectural style between the front and
rear elements creates a fragmented appearance that undermines the visual rhythm and spatial separation typical
of Groveway. The proposal disrupts the established townscape character and introduces a terrace-like form that
erodes the distinctiveness of the semi-detached and villa typology, contrary to Policies Q5, Q7, Q11, Q20 and Q22
of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
3
The proposal causes harm to the character and appearance of the Stockwell Park Conservation Area. The
development disrupts the symmetry of the semi-detached pair formed by Nos. 26 and 28 and introduces a hybrid
design that fails to reflect the form and spatial characteristics of the surrounding villas and terraces. This does not
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Policy Q20 and Q22 of the
Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and the Stockwell Park Conservation Area Statement.
Show all 4 rows
4
Due to the height and massing of the proposed front extension along the shared boundary, and in the
absence of a submitted daylight and sunlight report, officers have no evidence to demonstrate that the proposal
would not result in an adverse impact on neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan.
As such, the development is contrary to Policies Q2, Q20 and Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021), the NPPF,
and associated conservation guidance.
Policies cited
Q5Q7Q11Q20Q22Q2NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
18
In support
0
Total comments
19
Objections
18
In support
0
Total comments
19
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.