Looking for local planning application rejections

[Rowanofski]

I am trying to help gather some relevant information for an upcoming Planning Committee meeting and would be most grateful if anyone could let me know of a recent application they had declined, for any reason at all. The nearer to Dunstans Grove the better, but anything in the Peckham Rye Ward (or even East Dulwich) would be of interest.

I have had a bit of a search on the Southwark Planning site, but there is a minefield of information and nothing to explain the exact reasons why an application was actually declined, so it would be really useful if someone had any personal insight they might be willing to share.

For the sake of context and in case anyone is interested, I am one of the many local residents opposed to a significant expansion of the flats on the corner of Dunstans Grove. There seem to have been a number of far smaller applications declined, so I would be keen to show these as precedents.

If you have any information on a declined application, please get in touch directly!

Thanks. :-)

[intexasatthe moment]

Hi - you should be able to find refusal reasons on line .Some of the older applications have had most of the info removed but the majority are ok .

Have you had a look at Southwark's interactive map ?

http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Planning&tooltip=Plan_tips&banner=planning

and checked out minor applications ?

This one

12/AP/3686 | Change of use from joiners workshop/yard (Class B1) and demolition of existing single storey structure to create a new part two, part one storey 2 bedroom family dwelling with garage and amenity space at rear (Class C3) | 50 NORTH CROSS ROAD, LONDON, SE22 9EU

has the standard refusal of "due to height and proximity ...and will be overbearing and create an undue sense of enclosure upon neighbouring properties etc "

For comparison sake I think you need to be looking for developments that are similar in scale and scope to the Dunstans Grove one ,it won't matter how geographically close they are .

[intexasatthe moment]

There seem to have been a number of far smaller applications declined, so I would be keen to show these as precedents.

If you know addresses you should find details .

[Rowanofski]

Thanks very much, intexas.

I realised the error of my ways and have since discovered you can see the reason for decline in the related documents section on their planning register. Would still be interested to hear anyone's personal experience of these things though.

As you say, there are are far smaller applications that were declined (some on the basis of dormer windows alone), so if precedents are factored in as you would expect, then this should be a no-brainer...

That said, the planning officer in this case has already stated he would grant the application which is pretty shocking given the nature of this one and also the volume of public objections made. Thankfully it is going to committee who I hope will have a little more sense and consideration between them.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Rowan, the smaller applications are most likely to have been declined if they are listed buildings or in a conservation area. The current government has loosened up on what requires planning permission in general by extending permitted development rights, so many smaller structural changes don't even get to Planning. This doesn't apply for listed/conservation area properties and all of these have to go via Planning even if they are minor alterations and may get turned down if the conservation officer deems them to be detrimental to the area.

Renata

[Rowanofski]

Hi Renata,

That's really not actually the case for all small applications. As you know, the proposal on Dunstans Grove is not in a conservation area, but I really don't consider it to be a small structural change to more than double the current occupancy. In just a very quick cursory look at the planning site, I instantly found two very recent examples of a far smaller nature, which were refused and NOT in conservation areas or listed buildings.

12 Ferris Road (15/AP/5090) was denied a dormer extension and window alterations as they were "excessive in their scale... and would appear as a visually obtrusive and incongruous form of development... that would represent an overly dominant feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the building and the group of properties on Ferris Road"

21 Stuart Road (15/AP/4310) was denied a roof extension to create new self-contained studio flat because "its scale and design would result in an insensitive and out of scale addition to the original building that would be materially harmful to the appearance of the building and wider terrace"

It's worth noting that there was only one single objection registered between the two cases above, whereas the Dunstans Grove case currently stands at 37! I'd really appreciate it if you had any additional guidance in relation to our case.

Getting back onto my original post, this is the exact reason I have started this thread - there seems to be very little consistency to the planning process, so I don't actually know how much value these precedents are given.

Rowan

[MarkT]

Rowanofsky, try this:

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-3/policy-34-optimising

Southwark Council has designated this as Suburban Zone and TfL website shows Dunstans Road to have a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) of 2.

Habitable rooms (hr) include dining/sitting rooms and the developers state the area to be 406sqM. A hectare (ha) is 10,000sqM.

I have just submitted my objection as follows:

London Plan Policy 3.4 states that ?development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.? Table 3.2 defines Suburban Zone development as 2-3 storeys and, for a PTAL of 2, limits the density to 250 hr/ha. This proposal is therefore a storey too high and over twice the density specified in the London Plan.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi Mark that is relevant stuff.

Hi Rowan, with planning each application is considered on an individual basis, the two rejections you cite were probably done on a delegated basis and therefore an officer decided they should be rejected. Unfortunately this hasn't happened with the application you are interested in.

To update those interested in this one, it isn't going to the 5th April meeting, so most likely it will be heard at the 26th April Planning B. I am planning to represent residents for this item.

Renata