Planning application · Lewisham
DC/20/116066.
33 MALPAS ROAD, LONDON, SE4 1BP
Householder at 33 MALPAS ROAD, LONDON, SE4 1BP, received 9 Mar 2020 — refused on 4 May 2020 (delegated, Luke McBratney).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLewisham profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 May 2020
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
4
Documents
4 linked
1
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Lewisham 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?
Construction of a single storey extension to the rear of 33 Malpas Road SE4.
Reference
DC/20/116066
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE4 1BP
Ward
Council
Received
9 Mar 2020
Target date
4 May 2020
Decision date
4 May 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
DC/20/116066
Type
Householder Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE4 1BP
Ward
Council
Received
9 Mar 2020
Target date
4 May 2020
Decision date
4 May 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Documents open on the Lewisham portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 4 May 2020, delegated decision by Luke McBratney — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Mar 2020
Application received
4 May 2020
Statutory target date
4 May 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Luke McBratney
9 Mar 2020
Application received
4 May 2020
Statutory target date
4 May 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Luke McBratney
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive height and
depth, and positioning on the shared boundary, would result in a harmful overbearing
and enclosing impact as well as a loss of outlook to the occupiers of No.31 Malpas
Road, contrary to Paragraph 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2019); Policy 15 'High Quality Design for Lewisham' of the adopted Core Strategy
(2011), DM Policy 30 'Urban Design and Local Character' and DM Policy 31
'Alterations and Extensions to Existing Buildings including Residential Extensions' of
the Development Management Local Plan (2014) and the Alterations and Extension
SPD of the Local Development Framework (2019).
1
The proposed single storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive height and
depth, and positioning on the shared boundary, would result in a harmful overbearing
and enclosing impact as well as a loss of outlook to the occupiers of No.31 Malpas
Road, contrary to Paragraph 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(2019); Policy 15 'High Quality Design for Lewisham' of the adopted Core Strategy
(2011), DM Policy 30 'Urban Design and Local Character' and DM Policy 31
'Alterations and Extensions to Existing Buildings including Residential Extensions' of
the Development Management Local Plan (2014) and the Alterations and Extension
SPD of the Local Development Framework (2019).
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 127National Planning Policy Framework 130NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.