Planning application · Lewisham
DC/20/116399.
187-189 RUSHEY GREEN, LONDON, SE6 4BP
Full / Other Planning at 187-189 RUSHEY GREEN, LONDON, SE6 4BP, received 7 Apr 2020 — refused on 15 Jun 2020 (delegated, Samuel James).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLewisham profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Jun 2020
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
19
Documents
19 linked
0
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?
The change of use of the upper floors at 187-189 Rushey Green SE6 from employment use to C3 residential to provide 7 self-contained flats comprising 3, one bedroom flats, 2, two bedroom and 2, three bedroom flat, together with the construction of a rear extension at second floor level and an additional floor, alterations to the front, side and rear elevations, formation of new entrance to the front and associated cycle and bin storage.
Reference
DC/20/116399
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE6 4BP
Ward
Council
Received
7 Apr 2020
Validated
20 Apr 2020
Target date
15 Jun 2020
Decision date
15 Jun 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
DC/20/116399
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE6 4BP
Ward
Council
Received
7 Apr 2020
Validated
20 Apr 2020
Target date
15 Jun 2020
Decision date
15 Jun 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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 15 Jun 2020, delegated decision by Samuel James — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Apr 2020
Application received
20 Apr 2020
Application validated
15 Jun 2020
Statutory target date
15 Jun 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel James
7 Apr 2020
Application received
20 Apr 2020
Application validated
15 Jun 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
15 Jun 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Samuel James
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The marketing evidence submitted in support of the application is insufficient in scope
and has failed to demonstrate that the retention of B use class floorspace is unviable,
as the floorspace was not advertised at market value and has not been maintained to
an appropriate standard to attract new occupiers, contrary to Policy 4 Conversions of
office space into flats, Policy 5 Other employment locations of the Core Strategy
(2011) and DM Policy 11 Other employment locations, sites in Town Centres, Local
Hubs and other clusters of commercial and/or retail uses of the Development
Management Local Plan (2014).
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed fenestration on the southern
elevation at first and second and third floor level would not directly overlook and be
directly overlooked by the existing fenestration on the northern elevation of 191 Rushey
Green which is approximately 2 metres away resulting in an unnacceptably poor level
of privacy and outlook contrary to Paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019), Policy 7.2 of the
London Plan (2016), The London Housing SPG (2017), Policy DM4 Conversion of
offices into flats, and DM32 Housing Design, layout and space standards of the
Development Management Local Plan (2014).
3
The proposed extension is excessive in scale and unneighbourly to the rear, eastern
end of the site, and the proposed fourth storey windows on the front elevation would be
misaligned to the fenestration below, causing harm to the character and appearance
of the host building and surrounding area contrary to Paragraphs 124 and 127 of the
NPPF (2019), Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 15 High quality design of
the Lewisham Core Strategy and Policies DM30 Urban Design and Local Charachter
and DM31 Alterations and extensions of the Development Management Local Plan
(2014).
4
Insufficient information has been submitted regarding the car parking area which is
included within the ownership line on the submitted site location plan to determine the
acceptability of the proposal with regard to pedestrian access and safety, and
residential parking arrangements, contrary to Paragraph 108 of the NPPF, Policy 6.1,
and 7.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 14 Sustainable Movement and Transport of
the Lewisham Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 29 Car Parking of the Development
Management Local Plan (2014).
1
The marketing evidence submitted in support of the application is insufficient in scope
and has failed to demonstrate that the retention of B use class floorspace is unviable,
as the floorspace was not advertised at market value and has not been maintained to
an appropriate standard to attract new occupiers, contrary to Policy 4 Conversions of
office space into flats, Policy 5 Other employment locations of the Core Strategy
(2011) and DM Policy 11 Other employment locations, sites in Town Centres, Local
Hubs and other clusters of commercial and/or retail uses of the Development
Management Local Plan (2014).
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed fenestration on the southern
elevation at first and second and third floor level would not directly overlook and be
directly overlooked by the existing fenestration on the northern elevation of 191 Rushey
Green which is approximately 2 metres away resulting in an unnacceptably poor level
of privacy and outlook contrary to Paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2019), Policy 7.2 of the
London Plan (2016), The London Housing SPG (2017), Policy DM4 Conversion of
offices into flats, and DM32 Housing Design, layout and space standards of the
Development Management Local Plan (2014).
3
The proposed extension is excessive in scale and unneighbourly to the rear, eastern
end of the site, and the proposed fourth storey windows on the front elevation would be
misaligned to the fenestration below, causing harm to the character and appearance
of the host building and surrounding area contrary to Paragraphs 124 and 127 of the
NPPF (2019), Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 15 High quality design of
the Lewisham Core Strategy and Policies DM30 Urban Design and Local Charachter
and DM31 Alterations and extensions of the Development Management Local Plan
(2014).
Show all 4 rows
4
Insufficient information has been submitted regarding the car parking area which is
included within the ownership line on the submitted site location plan to determine the
acceptability of the proposal with regard to pedestrian access and safety, and
residential parking arrangements, contrary to Paragraph 108 of the NPPF, Policy 6.1,
and 7.2 of the London Plan (2016), Policy 14 Sustainable Movement and Transport of
the Lewisham Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 29 Car Parking of the Development
Management Local Plan (2014).
Policies cited
London Plan 7.2NPPFLondon Plan 7.6
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.