®Planning appeal decision
Constance Court, 47 Blenheim Grove, Peckham , London, SE15 4QR
Planning appeal 3278615 at Constance Court, 47 Blenheim Grove, Peckham , London, SE15 4QR (London Borough of Southwark) was dismissed on 23 December 2021 by Inspector MacLeod R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on a conservation area.
mansard roof extension of the existing flatted residential building to the front of the site to create one residential dwelling (Class C3); external alterations to the existing building including windows and brickwork; erection of a 2 - storey building comprising two residential dwellings (Class C3) to the rear of the site at lower ground and upper ground level; and associated car and cycle parking; refuse storage; landscaping and associated works
- Authority
- London Borough of Southwark
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- MacLeod R
- Postcode
- SE15 4QR
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on a conservation area
- the adequacy of the standard of accommodation proposed in relation to floor area and outlook
- the impact on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers in relation to privacy and outlook
What decided it
The massing of the additional floor to Constance Court would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Holly Grove Conservation Area, and the rear building would result in material loss of amenity for occupiers of existing dwellings, outweighing the benefits of 3 additional homes.
The benefits of providing 3 additional homes and other benefits such as electric charging points were significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts on the conservation area and living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Saved Policy 3.13 (Urban design)Saved Policy 3.16 (Conservation areas)Saved Policy 3.2 (protection of amenity)Saved Policy 4.2 (quality of accommodation)Policy 12 (Southwark Core Strategy 2011)
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 16Paragraph 199Paragraph 202
- Judgments
- Bedford Borough Council v SSCLG & Nuon UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 2847; Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Southwark
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021
- Dismissed17 June 2026600875415A Sydenham Hill, Southwark, London, SE26 6SH
- Notice varied and upheld4 August 20253317034Unit 3, Penarth Centre , Penarth Street, London, SE15 1TR
- Dismissed1 August 2025335896368 East Dulwich Grove, London, SE22 8PS
- Notice varied and upheld30 July 2025332710018 Overhill Road, London , SE22 0PH
- Dismissed25 September 20243339358Railway Arch 68, Ewer Street, London, SE1 0NR
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.