Planning application · Wandsworth
2023/3970.
41 Albert Bridge Road SW11 4PX
Householder at 41 Albert Bridge Road SW11 4PX, received 9 Nov 2023 — refused on 15 Dec 2023 (delegated, Caitlin White).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationWandsworth profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Dec 2023
5 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
5
Documents
5 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed 30/08/2024
Record from the Wandsworth 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?
Alterations to include the excavation to create basement parking area and associated hard and soft landscaping works.
Reference
2023/3970
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW11 4PX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Nov 2023
Decision date
15 Dec 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
APPEAL DECIDED
Council register
Reference
2023/3970
Type
Householder
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW11 4PX
Ward
Council
Received
9 Nov 2023
Decision date
15 Dec 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
APPEAL DECIDED
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 15 Dec 2023, delegated decision by Caitlin White — 5 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
9 Nov 2023
Application received
15 Dec 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Caitlin White
Appeal
Yes · Appeal Dismissed 30/08/2024
9 Nov 2023
Application received
15 Dec 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Caitlin White
Appeal
Yes · Appeal Dismissed 30/08/2024
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The application has failed to provide sufficient arboricultural reason and
justification for the removal of two of the three mature Lime trees (TG3) along
the southwestern boundary of the property and protected by the Tree
Preservation Order (T19, T20 and T21 of ref no.10/1996). Additionally, the
mature trees make a positive contribution to local visual amenity and their loss
on the site would result in harm to the character and appearance of the
Battersea Park Conservation Area. The level of harm would not be outweighed
by public benefits. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the NPPF (2023),
policies LP3 and LP56 of the Local Plan (2023).
2
The proposed development would not provide a minimum of 1metre of naturally
draining permeable soil together with the minimum 200mm drainage layer
above the basement in the garden area. The development would therefore
reduce opportunities for planting and not provide adequate sustainable drainage
for the development. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy LP6 of
the Local Plan (2023).
1
The application has failed to provide sufficient arboricultural reason and
justification for the removal of two of the three mature Lime trees (TG3) along
the southwestern boundary of the property and protected by the Tree
Preservation Order (T19, T20 and T21 of ref no.10/1996). Additionally, the
mature trees make a positive contribution to local visual amenity and their loss
on the site would result in harm to the character and appearance of the
Battersea Park Conservation Area. The level of harm would not be outweighed
by public benefits. The proposal therefore fails to comply with the NPPF (2023),
policies LP3 and LP56 of the Local Plan (2023).
2
The proposed development would not provide a minimum of 1metre of naturally
draining permeable soil together with the minimum 200mm drainage layer
above the basement in the garden area. The development would therefore
reduce opportunities for planting and not provide adequate sustainable drainage
for the development. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy LP6 of
the Local Plan (2023).
Policies cited
LP3LP56NPPFLP6
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Yes
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed 30/08/2024
Yes
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed 30/08/2024
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.