Development Intent
Planning AtlasLewishamRushey GreenApplication
Planning Application

DC/20/116565

97 BRADGATE ROAD, LONDON, SE6 4TR

Full / Other PlanningRushey Green wardPublic Transport Accessibility Level - 5: PTAL 5
Submission
28 Apr 2020
Target
21 Jul 2020
Decision
20 Jul 2020
Outcome
Refused
Delegated decisionRefused
20 Jul 2020
Decided by Samuel James under delegated powers
Loading map…
Scheme description

Construction of a roof extension in the rear roof space, installation of roof lights in the front roof slope at 97 Bradgate Road SE6, together with a two storey side extension with glazed window and alterations to provide 1 self-contained unit and new access to flats.

Why it was refused
Reason 1

The proposed flat would be provided with an insufficient overall internal floor area of 33m² which in addition to large portions not being suitable for standing due to their eaves location, would constitute a poor standard of accommodation. Furthermore, the proposal would not represent the exceptional design quality required for development of single person dwellings, contrary to Policies 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments of the London Plan (2016) , Policy 15 High Quality Design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards of the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

Reason 2

The proposed side extension, due to its siting, scale, mass and unconventional roof form including the large glazed element would result in an uncharacteristic and alien addition to the street, which would have an incongruous relationship to the host property and wider terrace. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF (February 2019); Policies 7.4 Local character and 7.6 Architecture of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011), DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character and DM Policy 31 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and the Alterations and Extension SPD (April 2019).

Reason 3

The proposed rear roofslope extension, due to its siting, mass, scale and fenestration pattern, would fail to respect the architectural integrity of the host property, resulting in an incongruous addition to the roof in a highly visible location and therefore harming the appearance of the property and the surrounding area, contrary to paragraph 124 of the NPPF (February 2019); Policies 7.4 Local character and 7.6 Architecture of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011), DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character and DM Policy 31 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) and the Alterations and Extension SPD (April 2019).

Policies cited
NPPF
Parties
Applicant
Mr. D. Murphy
Agent
DWA
Timeline
28 Apr 2020
Application submitted
26 May 2020
Application validated
20 Jul 2020
Delegated decision: Refused
Supporting documents · 24
Appeal decision24 May 2021View ↗
Appeal statement25 Jan 2021View ↗
Appeal start letter22 Jan 2021View ↗
Appeal form22 Jan 2021View ↗
Decision notice20 Jul 2020View ↗
Flood risk assessment28 May 2020View ↗
Planning statement28 May 2020View ↗
Redacted28 Apr 2020View ↗
Site location plan28 Apr 2020View ↗
Design and access statement part 328 Apr 2020View ↗
Design and access statement part 228 Apr 2020View ↗
Design & access statement28 Apr 2020View ↗
P0328 Apr 2020View ↗
P0228 Apr 2020View ↗
P0128 Apr 2020View ↗
P0028 Apr 2020View ↗
0128 Apr 2020View ↗
1546exe0128 Apr 2020View ↗
E0228 Apr 2020View ↗
E0128 Apr 2020View ↗
E0028 Apr 2020View ↗
S0128 Apr 2020View ↗
Site plan28 Apr 2020View ↗
Site location plan28 Apr 2020View ↗
View Application Page ↗
Data from the Lewisham planning register.
Summary
Reference
DC/20/116565
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Mr. D. Murphy
Submitted
28 Apr 2020
Decision date
20 Jul 2020
Council
Decision
Refused
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
How long, really
12
wks · this application
Submission → decision · 4 wks over the 8-week target
Public response
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0