Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
22/03531/FUL.
92 Willoughby Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6LJ
Full / Other Planning at 92 Willoughby Road Kingston Upon Thames KT2 6LJ, received 7 Nov 2022 — refused on 6 Jan 2023 (delegated, Aisha Stoll).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
6 Jan 2023
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over 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?
Conversion of existing residential property including the proposed extension into two residential dwelling houses (Retrospective Application)
Reference
22/03531/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2022
Validated
17 Nov 2022
Target date
12 Jan 2023
Decision date
6 Jan 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
22/03531/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
7 Nov 2022
Validated
17 Nov 2022
Target date
12 Jan 2023
Decision date
6 Jan 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
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 6 Jan 2023, delegated decision by Aisha Stoll — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Nov 2022
Application received
17 Nov 2022
Application validated
12 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
6 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Aisha Stoll
7 Nov 2022
Application received
17 Nov 2022
Application validated
12 Jan 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
6 Jan 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Aisha Stoll
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Given that the ceiling to floor height has not been demonstrated, and the proposal would fail to provide
adequate quantum of internal floorspace, bedroom widths, storage space for the proposed dwelling and
would fail to provide adequate rear amenity space for the retained and proposed dwelling, it is considered
that the proposal would provide a substandard form of accommodation for both dwellings and as such fail
to accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy (2012), and NPPF
2021.
2
The proposal would fail to provide safe on-site car parking and 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 and pedestrian safety resulting from vehicles using the proposed
car parking space overhanging and obstructing the pavement 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.
3
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, Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012, and NPPF 2021
1
Given that the ceiling to floor height has not been demonstrated, and the proposal would fail to provide
adequate quantum of internal floorspace, bedroom widths, storage space for the proposed dwelling and
would fail to provide adequate rear amenity space for the retained and proposed dwelling, it is considered
that the proposal would provide a substandard form of accommodation for both dwellings and as such fail
to accord with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy (2012), and NPPF
2021.
2
The proposal would fail to provide safe on-site car parking and 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 and pedestrian safety resulting from vehicles using the proposed
car parking space overhanging and obstructing the pavement 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.
3
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, Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012, and NPPF 2021
Policies cited
D3DM10NPPFT4DM9CS8
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.