Planning application · Lewisham
DC/26/142895.
LAND AT 41 KINGSAND ROAD & 246 BURNT ASH HILL, LONDON, SE12
Full / Other Planning at LAND AT 41 KINGSAND ROAD & 246 BURNT ASH HILL, LONDON, SE12, received 3 Feb 2026 — refused on 15 Apr 2026 (delegated, Amanda Ghani).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLewisham profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Apr 2026
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 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?
Conversion of existing building at 41 Kingsand Road to provide an additional self-contained flat (Use Class C3), together with the construction of a single storey extension to the side to form new access, an external staircase at the rear, a roof terrace at 1st floor level and all associated works at 246 Burnt Ash Hill SE12. (Please note amended description).
Reference
DC/26/142895
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
3 Feb 2026
Validated
13 Feb 2026
Target date
10 Apr 2026
Decision date
15 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
DC/26/142895
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Ward
Council
Received
3 Feb 2026
Validated
13 Feb 2026
Target date
10 Apr 2026
Decision date
15 Apr 2026
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 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Amanda Ghani — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
3 Feb 2026
Application received
13 Feb 2026
Application validated
10 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
15 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Amanda Ghani
3 Feb 2026
Application received
13 Feb 2026
Application validated
10 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
15 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Amanda Ghani
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the loss of the storage
facility would be acceptable or that its loss would not result in unacceptable harm to
the viability and vitality of the Londis convienience store, contrary to Policy E9 of the
London Plan (March 2021) and Policies EC8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (July 2025).
2.
The proposed first-floor roof terrace would afford uninterrupted views into the rear
window of the property at No. 242 Burnt Ash Hill and the small courtyard area in front
resulting in a significant degree of privacy loss to this adjacent neighbour. The roof
terrace would also result in increased, elevated noise levels at the rear of the subject
terrace which is likely to cause disturbance and detrimentally impact upon
neighbouring properties, contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies HO2, QD7, & QD8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025)
and the Council's Alterations and Extensions SPD (November 2019).
3.
The proposed development, by reason of the failure to provide an appropriate quantum
of safe, secure, accessible and convenient cycle parking and refuse facilities, the loss
of existing refuse facilities and the overprovision of off street car parking spaces fails
to promote active travel and sustainable transport modes, leading to unacceptable
harm to the objectives of reducing car dependency and the associated health impacts,
contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T5 and
Table 10.2 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies TR1 and TR4 of the Lewisham
Local Plan (2025).
4.
The proposed dwelling, due to a lack of privacy for the bedroom and lounge; poor
outlook from the lounge, poor ventilation and a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the
lounge would receive adequate levels of daylight would fail to provide an acceptable
standard of living conditions for future residents of the new development contrary to
paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy D6 of the
London Plan (2021) and Policy QD8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025).
5. The proposed roof terrace by reason of its scale and siting will result in a visually
intrusive and incongruous addition to the street scene which fails to respond positively
to the character of the area which would fail to achieve the high-quality design required
by Paragraphs 11 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy
D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) and Policies QD1 and QD6 of the Lewisham
Local Plan (2025).
1
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the loss of the storage
facility would be acceptable or that its loss would not result in unacceptable harm to
the viability and vitality of the Londis convienience store, contrary to Policy E9 of the
London Plan (March 2021) and Policies EC8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (July 2025).
2.
The proposed first-floor roof terrace would afford uninterrupted views into the rear
window of the property at No. 242 Burnt Ash Hill and the small courtyard area in front
resulting in a significant degree of privacy loss to this adjacent neighbour. The roof
terrace would also result in increased, elevated noise levels at the rear of the subject
terrace which is likely to cause disturbance and detrimentally impact upon
neighbouring properties, contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (2024), Policies HO2, QD7, & QD8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025)
and the Council's Alterations and Extensions SPD (November 2019).
3.
The proposed development, by reason of the failure to provide an appropriate quantum
of safe, secure, accessible and convenient cycle parking and refuse facilities, the loss
of existing refuse facilities and the overprovision of off street car parking spaces fails
to promote active travel and sustainable transport modes, leading to unacceptable
harm to the objectives of reducing car dependency and the associated health impacts,
contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T5 and
Table 10.2 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies TR1 and TR4 of the Lewisham
Local Plan (2025).
4.
The proposed dwelling, due to a lack of privacy for the bedroom and lounge; poor
outlook from the lounge, poor ventilation and a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the
lounge would receive adequate levels of daylight would fail to provide an acceptable
standard of living conditions for future residents of the new development contrary to
paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy D6 of the
London Plan (2021) and Policy QD8 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025).
5. The proposed roof terrace by reason of its scale and siting will result in a visually
intrusive and incongruous addition to the street scene which fails to respond positively
to the character of the area which would fail to achieve the high-quality design required
by Paragraphs 11 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy
D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) and Policies QD1 and QD6 of the Lewisham
Local Plan (2025).
Policies cited
E9EC8National Planning Policy Framework 135QD8National Planning Policy Framework 9London Plan 10.2TR1TR4D6National Planning Policy Framework 11National Planning Policy Framework 131D3QD1QD6NPPF
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.