Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
22/02236/FUL.
92 Willoughby Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6LJ
Full / Other Planning at 92 Willoughby Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6LJ, received 8 Jul 2022 — refused on 16 Sep 2022 (delegated, Aisha Stoll).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Sep 2022
10 wks
Decision time
2 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
7
Documents
7 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?
Erection of two storey side extension and conversion of an existing dwelling into 2nos dwelling houses. (Retrospective)
Reference
22/02236/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 6LJ
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jul 2022
Validated
25 Jul 2022
Target date
19 Sep 2022
Decision date
16 Sep 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
22/02236/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT2 6LJ
Ward
Council
Received
8 Jul 2022
Validated
25 Jul 2022
Target date
19 Sep 2022
Decision date
16 Sep 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
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 16 Sep 2022, delegated decision by Aisha Stoll — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Jul 2022
Application received
25 Jul 2022
Application validated
19 Sep 2022
Statutory target date
16 Sep 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Aisha Stoll
8 Jul 2022
Application received
25 Jul 2022
Application validated
19 Sep 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
16 Sep 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Aisha Stoll
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The applicant has failed to provide cogent information, or a suitable mechanism to secure the proposed
dwelling as 'car free', to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in inconsiderate
parking, increased on-street car parking pressure and an unacceptable impact on highway safety in conflict
with Paragraph 111 of the NPPF, 2021, Policy T4 of the London Plan 2021, and Policies DM9 and DM10 of
the LDF Core Strategy 2012. This holds significant weight against the proposal.
2
Given the uncharacteristic subdivision of the rear amenity space, officers consider that the proposal
would result in a cramped and contrived appearance which would detract from the appearance of the
surrounding area, and appear out of character with the prevailing pattern of development within the
surrounding area. This would be in conflict with Policies D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
3
Given that the proposal would fail to provide an adequate quality and quantum of internal
accommodation for the 2 bedroom dwelling, and would fail to provide sufficient amenity space for the
existing 3 bedroom dwelling and proposed 2 bedroom dwelling, the proposal would result in a substandard
form of accomodation. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021)
and Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy (2012).
1
The applicant has failed to provide cogent information, or a suitable mechanism to secure the proposed
dwelling as 'car free', to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in inconsiderate
parking, increased on-street car parking pressure and an unacceptable impact on highway safety in conflict
with Paragraph 111 of the NPPF, 2021, Policy T4 of the London Plan 2021, and Policies DM9 and DM10 of
the LDF Core Strategy 2012. This holds significant weight against the proposal.
2
Given the uncharacteristic subdivision of the rear amenity space, officers consider that the proposal
would result in a cramped and contrived appearance which would detract from the appearance of the
surrounding area, and appear out of character with the prevailing pattern of development within the
surrounding area. This would be in conflict with Policies D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
3
Given that the proposal would fail to provide an adequate quality and quantum of internal
accommodation for the 2 bedroom dwelling, and would fail to provide sufficient amenity space for the
existing 3 bedroom dwelling and proposed 2 bedroom dwelling, the proposal would result in a substandard
form of accomodation. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021)
and Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy (2012).
Policies cited
T4DM9DM10NPPFD3CS8
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.