Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
22/02552/HOU.
39 Burlington Road New Malden KT3 4LP
Householder at 39 Burlington Road New Malden KT3 4LP, received 5 Aug 2022 — refused on 23 Sep 2022 (delegated, Jake Powell).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
23 Sep 2022
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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 single-storey rear extension
Reference
22/02552/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT3 4LP
Council
Received
5 Aug 2022
Target date
30 Sep 2022
Decision date
23 Sep 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
22/02552/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT3 4LP
Council
Received
5 Aug 2022
Target date
30 Sep 2022
Decision date
23 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 23 Sep 2022, delegated decision by Jake Powell — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Aug 2022
Application received
30 Sep 2022
Statutory target date
23 Sep 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Jake Powell
5 Aug 2022
Application received
30 Sep 2022
Statutory target date
23 Sep 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Jake Powell
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By reason of its excessive depth, coupled with its height and siting along the shared boundary, the
proposed single storey rear extension would have an overbearing appearance to adjoining property, No.
37a Burlington Road, in conflict with policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DM10 of the LDF Core
Strategy 2012.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed
single storey rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest ground floor
principal habitable room windows at No. 37a and No. 39a Burlington Road in terms of daylight/sunlight.
Given that scale of the extension and the proximity of neighbouring widows it is considered that there is a
likelihood that the development would breach the "45 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the
neighbouring window, which in turn would harm the residential amenities of the occupant of the
neighbouring property. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan 2021
and policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
The applicant is advised to resubmit with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Policy Guidance 17 of the
RBK Residential Design guide has been taken into account.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/downloads/file/102/residential-design-spd
1
By reason of its excessive depth, coupled with its height and siting along the shared boundary, the
proposed single storey rear extension would have an overbearing appearance to adjoining property, No.
37a Burlington Road, in conflict with policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DM10 of the LDF Core
Strategy 2012.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed
single storey rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest ground floor
principal habitable room windows at No. 37a and No. 39a Burlington Road in terms of daylight/sunlight.
Given that scale of the extension and the proximity of neighbouring widows it is considered that there is a
likelihood that the development would breach the "45 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the
neighbouring window, which in turn would harm the residential amenities of the occupant of the
neighbouring property. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan 2021
and policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
The applicant is advised to resubmit with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Policy Guidance 17 of the
RBK Residential Design guide has been taken into account.
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/downloads/file/102/residential-design-spd
Policies cited
D3DM10
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.