Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
22/01199/FUL.
The Bungalow Browns Road Surbiton KT5 8ST
Full / Other Planning at The Bungalow Browns Road Surbiton KT5 8ST, received 8 Apr 2022 — refused on 15 Jun 2022 (delegated, William Flaherty).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Jun 2022
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
18
Documents
18 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Kingston Upon Thames 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?
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling of similar scale and footprint
Reference
22/01199/FUL
Type
Full Application
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT5 8ST
Ward
Council
Received
8 Apr 2022
Validated
20 Apr 2022
Target date
15 Jun 2022
Decision date
15 Jun 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
22/01199/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT5 8ST
Ward
Council
Received
8 Apr 2022
Validated
20 Apr 2022
Target date
15 Jun 2022
Decision date
15 Jun 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Kingston Upon Thames portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 15 Jun 2022, delegated decision by William Flaherty — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Apr 2022
Application received
20 Apr 2022
Application validated
15 Jun 2022
Statutory target date
15 Jun 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · William Flaherty
8 Apr 2022
Application received
20 Apr 2022
Application validated
15 Jun 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
15 Jun 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · William Flaherty
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed replacement dwelling would be of an excessive scale and bulk which would be a
prominent and incongruous feature within the Fishponds Park Conservation Area. It has not been robustly
demonstrated that the proposed development would not harm mature trees and landscaping which make a
positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Fishponds Park Conservation Area. The
proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fishponds Park
Conservation Area and would cause less than substantial harm to its significance which would not be
outweighed by the public benefits. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS8, DM10, DM11 and DM12 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012), Policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), Section 72 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Paragraph 202 of the NPPF (2021).
2
The submitted Arboricultural Information does not robustly demonstrate that the proposals would not
result in significant harm to, or loss of, trees within the Fishponds Park Conservation Area and Local Open
Space. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies G4, G6 and G7 of the London Plan
(2021), Policies DM5, DM6, DM10 and DM12 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Paragraph 180 of
the NPPF (2021).
3
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of a Fire Statement that the proposed
development would achieve the highest standards of fire safety to ensure the safety of all building users,
contrary to Policy D12(A) of the London Plan (2021).
1
The proposed replacement dwelling would be of an excessive scale and bulk which would be a
prominent and incongruous feature within the Fishponds Park Conservation Area. It has not been robustly
demonstrated that the proposed development would not harm mature trees and landscaping which make a
positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Fishponds Park Conservation Area. The
proposed development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Fishponds Park
Conservation Area and would cause less than substantial harm to its significance which would not be
outweighed by the public benefits. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS8, DM10, DM11 and DM12 of the
Kingston Core Strategy (2012), Policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), Section 72 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Paragraph 202 of the NPPF (2021).
2
The submitted Arboricultural Information does not robustly demonstrate that the proposals would not
result in significant harm to, or loss of, trees within the Fishponds Park Conservation Area and Local Open
Space. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies G4, G6 and G7 of the London Plan
(2021), Policies DM5, DM6, DM10 and DM12 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012) and Paragraph 180 of
the NPPF (2021).
3
It has not been demonstrated through the submission of a Fire Statement that the proposed
development would achieve the highest standards of fire safety to ensure the safety of all building users,
contrary to Policy D12(A) of the London Plan (2021).
Policies cited
CS8DM10DM11DM12HC1D3NPPFG4G6G7DM5DM6
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.