Planning application · Southwark
26/AP/0005.
Flat 2 Peacock House 38 St Giles Road London Southwark SE5 7RG
Listed Building at Flat 2 Peacock House 38 St Giles Road London Southwark SE5 7RG, received 5 Jan 2026 — refused on 20 Mar 2026 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSouthwark profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 Mar 2026
11 wks
Decision time
3 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
21
Documents
21 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?
Listed building consent for a single storey rear extension and the regularisation of elements within the existing dwellinghouse
Reference
26/AP/0005
Type
Listed Building Consent
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE5 7RG
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jan 2026
Validated
9 Jan 2026
Target date
5 Mar 2026
Decision date
20 Mar 2026
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
26/AP/0005
Type
Listed Building Consent
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SE5 7RG
Ward
Council
Received
5 Jan 2026
Validated
9 Jan 2026
Target date
5 Mar 2026
Decision date
20 Mar 2026
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 20 Mar 2026, determined by the planning committee — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Jan 2026
Application received
9 Jan 2026
Application validated
5 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
20 Mar 2026
Committee decision: Refused
5 Jan 2026
Application received
9 Jan 2026
Application validated
5 Mar 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
20 Mar 2026
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The placement of the proposed rear extension would harm the
appreciation of the rear façade of the listed building, altering the
appearance of the windows, the distinctive tower, and the plan form. The
rear extension would also be overly visible, distracting from the setting of
southwark.gov.uk 1 Southwark Council,
www.southwark.gov.uk/followus London SE1P 5LX
the listed building. The proposal is therefore deemed to constitute less
than substantial harm to the historical and architectural significance of the
grade II listed property. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there
are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm, as
required by para 215 of the NPPF. As a result, this application is contrary
to the London Plan (2021) policy HC1; the Southwark Plan (2022) policy
P19; and Chapter 16 of the NPPF (December 2024).
1
The placement of the proposed rear extension would harm the
appreciation of the rear façade of the listed building, altering the
appearance of the windows, the distinctive tower, and the plan form. The
rear extension would also be overly visible, distracting from the setting of
southwark.gov.uk 1 Southwark Council,
www.southwark.gov.uk/followus London SE1P 5LX
the listed building. The proposal is therefore deemed to constitute less
than substantial harm to the historical and architectural significance of the
grade II listed property. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there
are sufficient public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm, as
required by para 215 of the NPPF. As a result, this application is contrary
to the London Plan (2021) policy HC1; the Southwark Plan (2022) policy
P19; and Chapter 16 of the NPPF (December 2024).
Policies cited
NPPF
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.