Planning application · Lewisham
DC/21/122004.
8-12 LEE HIGH ROAD, LONDON, SE13 5LQ
Full / Other Planning at 8-12 LEE HIGH ROAD, LONDON, SE13 5LQ, received 28 May 2021 — refused on 6 Jun 2022 (delegated, Jesenka Ozdalga).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLewisham profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Jun 2022
53 wks
Decision time
45 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
39
Documents
39 linked
4
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 construction of first and second floor extensions to the rear and the construction of an additional storey on top of 8-12 Lee High Road, SE13, together with the change of use of ground floor to dental practice and change of use of first and second floors and additional floor extension to provide 9no. flats, associated alterations and provision of cycle parking.
Reference
DC/21/122004
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE13 5LQ
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2021
Validated
4 Jun 2021
Target date
30 Jul 2021
Decision date
6 Jun 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
DC/21/122004
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE13 5LQ
Ward
Council
Received
28 May 2021
Validated
4 Jun 2021
Target date
30 Jul 2021
Decision date
6 Jun 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 6 Jun 2022, delegated decision by Jesenka Ozdalga — 53 weeks from submission (45 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
28 May 2021
Application received
4 Jun 2021
Application validated
30 Jul 2021
Statutory target date
6 Jun 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Jesenka Ozdalga
28 May 2021
Application received
4 Jun 2021
Application validated
30 Jul 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
6 Jun 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Jesenka Ozdalga
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal, by virtue of flat 2 being single aspect, north facing onto Lee High Road
and by lack of provision of sufficient private amenity space to flats 1, 2 and 6 would
result in poor standard of accommodation for future occupiers contrary to Policy D6
‘Housing quality and standards’ of the London Plan (March 2021); Core Strategy Policy
15 ‘High quality design for Lewisham’ of the Lewisham’s Core Strategy; DM Policy 32
‘Housing design, layout and space standards’ of the Development Management Local
Plan (November 2014); and the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning
Guidance (SPG).
2
In the absence of a Section 106 agreement the proposal fails to demonstrate that the
scheme would not result in unacceptable overspill parking in the area leading to harm
to highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policy T6 Car parking and T6.1
Residential parking of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy 14 Sustainable movement
and transport of the Lewisham Core Strategy (June 2011), Policy 29 Car parking of the
Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and Paragraphs 104 and 111
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the proposed design, materials, design of
entrance and access to upper storeys and insufficient detailing would not represent a
high quality form of development causing visual harm to the character and appearance
of the property and surrounding streetscene, contrary to the paragraph 126 of the
NPPF, policies D3 and D5, Policy 15 'High quality design for Lewisham' of the Core
Strategy (June 2011), DM Policies 30 'Urban design and local character' and 31
'Alterations/extensions to existing buildings' of the Development Management Local
Plan (November 2014) and the provisions of the Small Sites SPD (2021).
4
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the site can support well integrated and
easily accessible cycle parking facilities contrary to Policy T5 ‘Cycling’ of the London
Plan (March 2021); and Core Strategy Policy 14 ‘Sustainable movement and transport’
of the Lewisham’s Core Strategy (June 2011) and policy LTC12 of the Lewisham
Town Centre Local Plan (2014).
5
By reason of inappropriate layout and size of the bin storage and by absence of
sufficient detail to demonstrate appropriate management of the waste on the collection
days including access thorugh the existing gate the proposed bin storage fails to
comply with Policy 13 Addressing Lewisham waste management of Lewisham’s Core
Strategy (June 2011) and policy LTC12 of the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan
(2014).
6
In the absence of information in terms of biodiversity/ecology implications on river
corridor and surrounding and mitigation and improvement measures, officers are
unable to determine the impact from the proposal on natural environment in the
immediate surrounding contrary to the Paragraph 174 of the NPPF, Policy SI14
Waterways – strategic role and SI17 Protecting and enhancing London’s waterways of
the London Plan (March 2021), policy LTC6 and 25 of the Lewisham Town Centre
Local Plan (2014) and Lewisham River Corridor Improvement Plan SPD (September
2015).
7
The submitted information fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an
adverse increase in loading to the river wall contrary to paragraph 159 of the NPPF
(2021), Policy SI12 Flood Risk Management of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 10
Managing and reducing the risk of flooding of the Core Strategy (2011) and policy
LTC6 of the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014).
1
The proposal, by virtue of flat 2 being single aspect, north facing onto Lee High Road
and by lack of provision of sufficient private amenity space to flats 1, 2 and 6 would
result in poor standard of accommodation for future occupiers contrary to Policy D6
‘Housing quality and standards’ of the London Plan (March 2021); Core Strategy Policy
15 ‘High quality design for Lewisham’ of the Lewisham’s Core Strategy; DM Policy 32
‘Housing design, layout and space standards’ of the Development Management Local
Plan (November 2014); and the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning
Guidance (SPG).
2
In the absence of a Section 106 agreement the proposal fails to demonstrate that the
scheme would not result in unacceptable overspill parking in the area leading to harm
to highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policy T6 Car parking and T6.1
Residential parking of the London Plan (March 2021), Policy 14 Sustainable movement
and transport of the Lewisham Core Strategy (June 2011), Policy 29 Car parking of the
Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and Paragraphs 104 and 111
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the proposed design, materials, design of
entrance and access to upper storeys and insufficient detailing would not represent a
high quality form of development causing visual harm to the character and appearance
of the property and surrounding streetscene, contrary to the paragraph 126 of the
NPPF, policies D3 and D5, Policy 15 'High quality design for Lewisham' of the Core
Strategy (June 2011), DM Policies 30 'Urban design and local character' and 31
'Alterations/extensions to existing buildings' of the Development Management Local
Plan (November 2014) and the provisions of the Small Sites SPD (2021).
Show all 7 rows
4
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the site can support well integrated and
easily accessible cycle parking facilities contrary to Policy T5 ‘Cycling’ of the London
Plan (March 2021); and Core Strategy Policy 14 ‘Sustainable movement and transport’
of the Lewisham’s Core Strategy (June 2011) and policy LTC12 of the Lewisham
Town Centre Local Plan (2014).
5
By reason of inappropriate layout and size of the bin storage and by absence of
sufficient detail to demonstrate appropriate management of the waste on the collection
days including access thorugh the existing gate the proposed bin storage fails to
comply with Policy 13 Addressing Lewisham waste management of Lewisham’s Core
Strategy (June 2011) and policy LTC12 of the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan
(2014).
6
In the absence of information in terms of biodiversity/ecology implications on river
corridor and surrounding and mitigation and improvement measures, officers are
unable to determine the impact from the proposal on natural environment in the
immediate surrounding contrary to the Paragraph 174 of the NPPF, Policy SI14
Waterways – strategic role and SI17 Protecting and enhancing London’s waterways of
the London Plan (March 2021), policy LTC6 and 25 of the Lewisham Town Centre
Local Plan (2014) and Lewisham River Corridor Improvement Plan SPD (September
2015).
7
The submitted information fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in an
adverse increase in loading to the river wall contrary to paragraph 159 of the NPPF
(2021), Policy SI12 Flood Risk Management of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 10
Managing and reducing the risk of flooding of the Core Strategy (2011) and policy
LTC6 of the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014).
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 104National Planning Policy Framework 111NPPFLTC12LTC6Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan 25
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
5
Objections
4
In support
0
Total comments
5
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.