Planning application · Southwark
24/AP/1590.
42 Silvester Road London Southwark SE22 9PB
Other at 42 Silvester Road London Southwark SE22 9PB, received 29 May 2024 — refused on 5 Jul 2024 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSouthwark profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Jul 2024
5 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
38
Documents
38 linked
6
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?
Prior approval notification for construction of single storey rear extension (6m depth, 2.4m to eaves and 3.5m maximum height)
Reference
24/AP/1590
Type
Large Home Extensions
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE22 9PB
Ward
Council
Received
29 May 2024
Validated
30 May 2024
Target date
9 Jul 2024
Decision date
5 Jul 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/AP/1590
Type
Large Home Extensions
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE22 9PB
Ward
Council
Received
29 May 2024
Validated
30 May 2024
Target date
9 Jul 2024
Decision date
5 Jul 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
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 5 Jul 2024, determined by the planning committee — 5 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
29 May 2024
Application received
30 May 2024
Application validated
9 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
5 Jul 2024
Committee decision: Refused
29 May 2024
Application received
30 May 2024
Application validated
9 Jul 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Jul 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Reasons for Refusal
. By reason of the height and depth of the ground floor rear addition on the
boundary with No.40a the proposal would increase the sense of enclosure
at the rear of No. 40a to a harmful degree, and would result in an
unacceptable impact on the outlook and daylight/sunlight enjoyed at the
1
Southwark Council, PO BOX 64529, London SE1P 5LX • southwark.gov.uk • facebook.com/southwarkcouncil • twitter.com/lb_southwark
rear of No. 40a. The perceived detrimental loss of amenity at No. 40a
would fail to meet the requirements of paragraph A.4 of Class A, Part 1,
Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), by reason of failing
the requirements of Policy 56 Protection of Amenity of Southwark Plan
2022 and the guidance in the 2015 Technical Update to the Residential
Design Standards (2011).
As a result, prior approval is refused.
1
Reasons for Refusal
. By reason of the height and depth of the ground floor rear addition on the
boundary with No.40a the proposal would increase the sense of enclosure
at the rear of No. 40a to a harmful degree, and would result in an
unacceptable impact on the outlook and daylight/sunlight enjoyed at the
1
Southwark Council, PO BOX 64529, London SE1P 5LX • southwark.gov.uk • facebook.com/southwarkcouncil • twitter.com/lb_southwark
rear of No. 40a. The perceived detrimental loss of amenity at No. 40a
would fail to meet the requirements of paragraph A.4 of Class A, Part 1,
Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), by reason of failing
the requirements of Policy 56 Protection of Amenity of Southwark Plan
2022 and the guidance in the 2015 Technical Update to the Residential
Design Standards (2011).
As a result, prior approval is refused.
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
6
Objections
6
In support
0
Total comments
6
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.