Planning application · Southwark
22/AP/0009.
55 Adys Road London Southwark SE15 4DX
Householder at 55 Adys Road London Southwark SE15 4DX, received 5 Jan 2022 — refused on 25 May 2022 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSouthwark profile →
Refused
Outcome
25 May 2022
20 wks
Decision time
12 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 linked
12
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Southwark 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 rear dormer extension and a roof terrace over second floor outrigger.
Reference
22/AP/0009
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jan 2022
Validated
29 Mar 2022
Target date
23 May 2022
Decision date
25 May 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
22/AP/0009
Type
Householder Application
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jan 2022
Validated
29 Mar 2022
Target date
23 May 2022
Decision date
25 May 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Southwark portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 25 May 2022, determined by the planning committee — 20 weeks from submission (12 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Jan 2022
Application received
29 Mar 2022
Application validated
23 May 2022
Statutory target date
25 May 2022
Committee decision: Refused
5 Jan 2022
Application received
29 Mar 2022
Application validated
23 May 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
25 May 2022
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed roof terrace would give rise to impacts of overlooking and
loss of privacy to neighbours as well as impacting on the host building. As
such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy P56 (Protection of
Amenity) of the Southwark Plan (2022) and the Council's 2015 Technical
Update to the Residential Design Standards (2011).
1
2
The proposed roof terrace would give rise to noise disturbance to the
detriment of neighbouring properties in the terrace and its surroundings.
The proposal is therefore contrary to policies P56 (Protection of amenity)
of the Southwark Plan 2022 and the Council's 2015 Technical Update to
the Residential Design Standards (2011).
3
The proposed extension by reason of the unacceptable scale and design,
will result in creating a sense of enclosure to the detriment of
neighbouring properties in the terrace and its surroundings. The proposal
is therefore contrary to policies P14 (Design quality) of the Southeark Plan
2022 and the Council's 2015 Technical Update to the Residential Design
Standards (2011).
1
The proposed roof terrace would give rise to impacts of overlooking and
loss of privacy to neighbours as well as impacting on the host building. As
such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy P56 (Protection of
Amenity) of the Southwark Plan (2022) and the Council's 2015 Technical
Update to the Residential Design Standards (2011).
1
2
The proposed roof terrace would give rise to noise disturbance to the
detriment of neighbouring properties in the terrace and its surroundings.
The proposal is therefore contrary to policies P56 (Protection of amenity)
of the Southwark Plan 2022 and the Council's 2015 Technical Update to
the Residential Design Standards (2011).
3
The proposed extension by reason of the unacceptable scale and design,
will result in creating a sense of enclosure to the detriment of
neighbouring properties in the terrace and its surroundings. The proposal
is therefore contrary to policies P14 (Design quality) of the Southeark Plan
2022 and the Council's 2015 Technical Update to the Residential Design
Standards (2011).
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
12
In support
0
Total comments
12
Objections
12
In support
0
Total comments
12
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.