Planning application · Lambeth
25/01820/FUL.
72-74 Gipsy Hill And 1 Cawnpore Street London SE19
Full / Other Planning at 72-74 Gipsy Hill And 1 Cawnpore Street London SE19, received 3 Jun 2025 — refused on 15 Aug 2025 (delegated, Nadia Harper).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Aug 2025
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
26
Documents
26 linked
2
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 2-storey rear extension, and change of use of ground floor to form a new 4-bed dwelling.
Reference
25/01820/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
3 Jun 2025
Target date
29 Jul 2025
Decision date
15 Aug 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/01820/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
3 Jun 2025
Target date
29 Jul 2025
Decision date
15 Aug 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 15 Aug 2025, delegated decision by Nadia Harper — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Jun 2025
Application received
29 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
15 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Nadia Harper
3 Jun 2025
Application received
29 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
15 Aug 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Nadia Harper
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed change of use at lower ground floor to residential use would result in unacceptable loss of a
non-designated industrial site as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the
continued use of the land for employment generating purposes. This is contrary to Policy ED4 of the Lambeth
Local Plan (2021), and policies E2 and E7 of the London Plan (2021).
2
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 uptake of sustainable modes of travel and
reduce dependence on the private car. Those obligations are provision of car and cycle hire memberships; and
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
monitoring fee. This is contrary to policies T1, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and
provisions of the NPPF (2021) which seek to promote sustainable modes of travel.
1
The proposed change of use at lower ground floor to residential use would result in unacceptable loss of a
non-designated industrial site as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the
continued use of the land for employment generating purposes. This is contrary to Policy ED4 of the Lambeth
Local Plan (2021), and policies E2 and E7 of the London Plan (2021).
2
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 uptake of sustainable modes of travel and
reduce dependence on the private car. Those obligations are provision of car and cycle hire memberships; and
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
monitoring fee. This is contrary to policies T1, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021) and
provisions of the NPPF (2021) which seek to promote sustainable modes of travel.
Policies cited
ED4E2E7T1T3T6NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
2
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.