Planning application · Lewisham
DC/26/143143.
KINGSWOOD, 1 SYDENHAM PARK ROAD, LONDON, SE26 4DY
Householder at KINGSWOOD, 1 SYDENHAM PARK ROAD, LONDON, SE26 4DY, received 26 Feb 2026 — refused on 24 Apr 2026 (delegated, Carys Morgan).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationLewisham profile →
Refused
Outcome
24 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
30
Documents
30 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?
Construction of a single storey front extension and loft conversion,with all associated works at Kingswood, 1 Sydenham Park Road SE26.
Reference
DC/26/143143
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE26 4DY
Ward
Council
Received
26 Feb 2026
Validated
27 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
24 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decided
Council register
Reference
DC/26/143143
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE26 4DY
Ward
Council
Received
26 Feb 2026
Validated
27 Feb 2026
Target date
24 Apr 2026
Decision date
24 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 24 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Carys Morgan — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
26 Feb 2026
Application received
27 Feb 2026
Application validated
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
24 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Carys Morgan
26 Feb 2026
Application received
27 Feb 2026
Application validated
24 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
24 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Carys Morgan
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed front extension, side dormers, and fenestration changes, by reason of
their poor design, configuration, and siting, would form an incongruous and visually
obtrusive development that would erode the architectural integrity and historic
character of the host building. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the property and the wider Sydenham Park Conservation
Area, contrary to Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024),
Policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies QD9, HE1 and HE2 of the
Lewisham Local Plan (2025) and the provisions of the Council Alterations and
Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019).
2
Insufficient supporting information has been provided to demonstrate that the
proposed development, by reason of the lack of an Arboricultural Survey or Method
Statement, would not lead to unacceptable harm to statutorily protected trees at the
application site, contrary to paragraph 186 and 187 of the NPPF (2024), Policy G7 of
the London Plan (2021), Policies HE2 and GR5 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025)
and the provisions of the Council Alterations and Extensions SPD (2019).
1
The proposed front extension, side dormers, and fenestration changes, by reason of
their poor design, configuration, and siting, would form an incongruous and visually
obtrusive development that would erode the architectural integrity and historic
character of the host building. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the property and the wider Sydenham Park Conservation
Area, contrary to Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024),
Policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies QD9, HE1 and HE2 of the
Lewisham Local Plan (2025) and the provisions of the Council Alterations and
Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019).
2
Insufficient supporting information has been provided to demonstrate that the
proposed development, by reason of the lack of an Arboricultural Survey or Method
Statement, would not lead to unacceptable harm to statutorily protected trees at the
application site, contrary to paragraph 186 and 187 of the NPPF (2024), Policy G7 of
the London Plan (2021), Policies HE2 and GR5 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025)
and the provisions of the Council Alterations and Extensions SPD (2019).
Policies cited
National Planning Policy Framework 16HC1D3QD9HE1HE2NPPFG7GR5
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.