Planning application · Lambeth
25/03944/FUL.
170 Rosendale Road London Lambeth SE21 8LG
Full / Other Planning at 170 Rosendale Road London Lambeth SE21 8LG, received 18 Dec 2025 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Nadia Harper).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLambeth profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
19 wks
Decision time
11 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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 ground floor rear extension to the existing garage, together with an extension on top of the existing garage to create a two bed unit.
Reference
25/03944/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE21 8LG
Ward
Council
Received
18 Dec 2025
Validated
21 Jan 2026
Target date
18 Mar 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
25/03944/FUL
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE21 8LG
Ward
Council
Received
18 Dec 2025
Validated
21 Jan 2026
Target date
18 Mar 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
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 27 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Nadia Harper — 19 weeks from submission (11 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
18 Dec 2025
Application received
21 Jan 2026
Application validated
18 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Nadia Harper
18 Dec 2025
Application received
21 Jan 2026
Application validated
18 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Nadia Harper
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would be ancillary to the main
dwelling, the proposal has been assessed as a self-contained dwelling. The proposed unit would fail to provide an
acceptable standard of accommodation by reason of insufficient internal floor area, inadequate floor to ceiling
height, and a lack of adequate storage and amenity space. As such, the development would not meet the
requirements of Policy D6 (Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), the Nationally Described
Space Standards, nor Policy H5 (Housing standards) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and would result in
substandard living conditions for future occupiers.
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
2
The proposal, by reason of its scale and massing, and roof design, would result in a visually intrusive form
of development, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, contrary to Policies Q5 and
Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Furthermore, the proposal would fail to appear subordinate to the host
building, or to respect the scale and proportions of the host building, resulting in a low level of less than substantial
harm to the wider conservation area, contrary to Policy Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Insufficient public
benefit exists to outweigh this harm, contrary to paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024)
3
In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the development as car-permit free, provision of a
car club membership and cycle hire membership, the transport impacts of the development would not be fully
addressed, and it would fail to promote less private car ownership and sustainable travel. The application is
therefore contrary to Policies T1, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
1
In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would be ancillary to the main
dwelling, the proposal has been assessed as a self-contained dwelling. The proposed unit would fail to provide an
acceptable standard of accommodation by reason of insufficient internal floor area, inadequate floor to ceiling
height, and a lack of adequate storage and amenity space. As such, the development would not meet the
requirements of Policy D6 (Housing quality and standards) of the London Plan (2021), the Nationally Described
Space Standards, nor Policy H5 (Housing standards) of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021) and would result in
substandard living conditions for future occupiers.
Lambeth Planning Telephone 020 7926 1180
PO Box 80771 www.lambeth.gov.uk
London planning@lambeth.gov.uk
SW2 9QQ
REFULZ
2
The proposal, by reason of its scale and massing, and roof design, would result in a visually intrusive form
of development, resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, contrary to Policies Q5 and
Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Furthermore, the proposal would fail to appear subordinate to the host
building, or to respect the scale and proportions of the host building, resulting in a low level of less than substantial
harm to the wider conservation area, contrary to Policy Q22 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021). Insufficient public
benefit exists to outweigh this harm, contrary to paragraph 215 of the NPPF (2024)
3
In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the development as car-permit free, provision of a
car club membership and cycle hire membership, the transport impacts of the development would not be fully
addressed, and it would fail to promote less private car ownership and sustainable travel. The application is
therefore contrary to Policies T1, T3 and T6 of the Lambeth Local Plan (2021).
Policies cited
Q5Q11Q22NPPFT1T3T6
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.