Planning application · Southwark
24/AP/2128.
14 Chadwick Road London Southwark SE15 4RA
Householder at 14 Chadwick Road London Southwark SE15 4RA, received 22 Jul 2024 — refused on 24 Sep 2024 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSouthwark profile →
Refused
Outcome
24 Sep 2024
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
16
Documents
16 linked
0
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 single storey side return extension and rear dormer extension.
Reference
24/AP/2128
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE15 4RA
Ward
Council
Received
22 Jul 2024
Validated
1 Aug 2024
Target date
25 Sep 2024
Decision date
24 Sep 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/AP/2128
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE15 4RA
Ward
Council
Received
22 Jul 2024
Validated
1 Aug 2024
Target date
25 Sep 2024
Decision date
24 Sep 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 24 Sep 2024, determined by the planning committee — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Jul 2024
Application received
1 Aug 2024
Application validated
25 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
24 Sep 2024
Committee decision: Refused
22 Jul 2024
Application received
1 Aug 2024
Application validated
25 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
24 Sep 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed dormer extension, by virtue of its bulky and dominant
1
appearance and detailed design, would disrupt the roofscape which are
significant features of the locally listed terrace and the wider conservation
area. Consequently, it would harmfully impact the setting and character of
the Holly Grove Conservation Area, and would fail to preserve the
appearance of the building itself and the row of terraced dwelling houses
along Chadwick Road and the Holly Grove Conservation Area.
The proposal is therefore non-compliant with Chapter 12 (Achieving well-
designed and beautiful places), Chapter 16 (Conserving and Enhancing
the Historic Environment) of the NPPF (2023); policy HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan (2021); policies P13 (Design
of places), P20 (Conservation areas), P21 (Conservation of the historic
environment and natural heritage), and P26 (Local list) of the Southwark
Plan (2022); and pages 26 and 30 of the Residential Design Standards
SPD (2015).
1
The proposed dormer extension, by virtue of its bulky and dominant
1
appearance and detailed design, would disrupt the roofscape which are
significant features of the locally listed terrace and the wider conservation
area. Consequently, it would harmfully impact the setting and character of
the Holly Grove Conservation Area, and would fail to preserve the
appearance of the building itself and the row of terraced dwelling houses
along Chadwick Road and the Holly Grove Conservation Area.
The proposal is therefore non-compliant with Chapter 12 (Achieving well-
designed and beautiful places), Chapter 16 (Conserving and Enhancing
the Historic Environment) of the NPPF (2023); policy HC1 (Heritage
conservation and growth) of the London Plan (2021); policies P13 (Design
of places), P20 (Conservation areas), P21 (Conservation of the historic
environment and natural heritage), and P26 (Local list) of the Southwark
Plan (2022); and pages 26 and 30 of the Residential Design Standards
SPD (2015).
Policies cited
Residential Design Standards SPD 26Residential Design Standards SPD 30NPPF
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 (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.