Live sample report — interactive

Every Rasmere report is institution-grade.

This is a full report on a real Clapham proposal — the same structure, evidence depth, and defensibility our subscribers use before they commit capital. Scroll it, read it, ask the AI questions on the right. No sign-in.

Address
48 Ferndale Road, Clapham, London SW4 7RH
Authority
London Borough of Lambeth
Report ref
RSM-2025-0482
Last updated
17 June 2026
Planning intelligence report · RSM-2025-0482
48 Ferndale Road, Clapham, London SW4 7RH
APPROVABLE — with conditions
§01

Executive summary

The proposal at 48 Ferndale Road, Clapham, London SW4 7RH replaces a modest two-storey dwelling with a well-designed four-storey building of six residential units. On the balance of policy weight, comparable decisions, and site constraints, Rasmere assesses this scheme as approvable subject to conditions with a confidence score of 78/100.

The principal risk is the retention of two TPO trees within the red-line. Every recent refusal on this street cited the same policy (Q26). This risk is controllable but not ignorable — it demands an Arboricultural Impact Assessment pre-submission and a foundation design that demonstrably avoids root disturbance.

Approval likelihood
78%
Policy conflicts
1 material
Comparable approvals (500 m)
4 of 6
TPO / heritage constraints
2 trees
§02 · Approvable — with conditions

Planning verdict

Rasmere's planning verdict weighs policy alignment (55%), comparable decisions (25%), constraint severity (15%), and site-specific planning history (5%). The composite score for this proposal is 78 — placing it in the "approvable with conditions" band (65–84).

Confidence composition
78 / 100
AlignedPartialDeducted
§03

Proposal assessment

Demolition of existing 2-storey dwelling. Erection of 4-storey building comprising 6 residential units (2×1B, 3×2B, 1×3B) with basement, roof terrace, cycle store and landscaped rear garden.

Storeys
4
Units
6
GIA
612 m²
Density
286 hr/ha
Cycle spaces
12
Car spaces
0 (PTAL 6a)
Amenity
Communal + private
Affordable
35% (S106)

Massing steps back at fourth storey to match the eaves rhythm of the northern neighbour. Materiality — reconstituted stone plinth, London stock brick above, aluminium fenestration — is consistent with the recently approved 62 Ferndale Road (22/04118/FUL, see comparables).

§04 · 10 policies assessed

Policy analysis

Every material policy from the adopted Lambeth Local Plan (2021), the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (December 2024) has been assessed against this proposal. The table below shows Rasmere's stance for each; expand a row for the citation and evidence trail (in a live subscriber report).

CodePlanPolicyStance
H1Lambeth Local Plan 2021Maximising housing growthAligned
H4Lambeth Local Plan 2021Housing mixAligned
Q7Lambeth Local Plan 2021Urban design: new developmentPartial
Q11Lambeth Local Plan 2021Building alterations and extensionsAligned
Q26Lambeth Local Plan 2021TreesAt risk
T3Lambeth Local Plan 2021Cycle storageAligned
D3London Plan 2021Optimising site capacity — design-ledAligned
D9London Plan 2021Tall buildingsN/A
H10London Plan 2021Housing size mixPartial
§11NPPF (Dec 2024)Presumption in favour of sustainable developmentEngaged
§05

Planning history

Three prior applications on the red-line site, all granted. No refusals, no appeals, no enforcement notices. The 2019 loft-and-rear approval establishes the principle of intensified use, and no adverse officer commentary exists in the record.

  1. 2019
    19/03127/FUL
    Loft conversion & rear extension
    Granted
  2. 2011
    11/00842/FUL
    Single-storey rear extension
    Granted
  3. 2004
    04/00317/LDC
    Certificate of lawful development — outbuilding
    Granted
§06 · Within 500 m · last 6 years

Comparable decisions

Six directly comparable schemes have been decided within a 500 m radius since 2020; the three most instructive are shown here. Full comparables table with 47 fields available in the live report.

22/04118/FUL
62 Ferndale Road (144 m N)
Approved
Proposal: Redevelopment: 4-storey block, 5 units
Officer: T. Nkomo
Decided: Nov 2023
Officer accepted 4-storey height on identical street rhythm. Cited H1 & Q7. Directly analogous massing.
21/00983/FUL
12 Rectory Grove (280 m W)
Approved on appeal
Proposal: Demolition + 4-storey, 7 units
Officer: R. Patel
Decided: Aug 2022
Inspector overturned refusal on character grounds. Precedent that streetscape argument fails where rhythm is broken.
20/02205/FUL
8 Ferndale Road (60 m S)
Refused
Proposal: Roof extension + 2 additional units
Officer: M. Owusu
Decided: Apr 2021
Refused on Q26 (loss of front-garden tree). This scheme retains all TPO trees — refusal reason does not apply.
§07

Constraints map

Every material planning constraint layered across a single interactive canvas. Static preview shown below; live subscribers pan, zoom, and toggle layers.

SITETPON
Approval Refusal TPO
  • Conservation AreaNot designated
  • Listed BuildingsNone within 50 m
  • Flood ZoneZone 1 (low)
  • TPO Trees2 protected within red-line
  • Article 4Not designated
  • PTAL6a (excellent)
  • EcologyNo SINC within 100 m
  • ContaminationPrior industrial — Phase 1 recommended
§08

Risk matrix

Every material risk quantified on the standard 3×3 scale (likelihood × impact), with a mitigation for each. Rasmere weights the composite score into the planning verdict.

RiskLikelyImpactScoreMitigation
TPO tree retention (Q26)MedHigh9Arboricultural Impact Assessment; foundation design demonstrating no root disturbance.
Daylight to No. 46 rear windowsMedMed6BRE 209 study; recess upper-storey rear elevation by 900 mm.
Housing mix — 1B unit proportionLowMed4Reference to policy H10 flexibility clause; mix aligned to local need evidence base.
S106 affordable-housing tariffHighLow4Provision budgeted; viability report prepared to defend if challenged.
Highways objection on parkingLowLow2Car-free covenant offered; PTAL 6a supports.
§09

Recommendations

Rasmere's ordered next steps, front-loaded by leverage. Complete these before submission.

  1. 01Commission a full Arboricultural Impact Assessment (BS 5837) before submission; this is the single highest-scoring risk.
  2. 02Recess the fourth-floor rear elevation by 900 mm to pre-empt daylight objections from No. 46.
  3. 03Front-load the design-and-access statement with the 22/04118/FUL precedent; officer-reasoning is nearly identical.
  4. 04Offer car-free covenant at S106 stage — costless and neutralises the one likely highways comment.
  5. 05Budget for £84–96k S106 affordable-housing tariff; refuse viability negotiation on this scale.
§10 · 8 primary sources · 47 citations

Evidence appendix

Every claim in this report is backed by primary evidence. Live subscribers see every source inline; the appendix listing is shown below.

  • A1Lambeth Local Plan (2021) — full policy text, cited paragraphs
  • A2London Plan (2021) — cited chapters
  • A3NPPF (December 2024) — cited paragraphs
  • A4Planning history extracts for site + 6 comparables
  • A5TPO register — Order 04/2018 (subject trees)
  • A6Lambeth SHMA (2023) — ward-level housing mix evidence
  • A7OS Master Map extract with red-line overlay
  • A8Rasmere methodology & scoring rubric v4.2
Get this on your site

Every report we produce reads like this one.

Submit an address and a proposal type. Rasmere returns an institution-grade report — usually within an hour, every citation traceable to a primary source.