Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
24/02567/HOU.
35 Burghley Avenue New Malden KT3 4SW
Householder at 35 Burghley Avenue New Malden KT3 4SW, received 16 Oct 2024 — refused on 2 Jan 2025 (delegated, Honey Olaiya).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Jan 2025
11 wks
Decision time
3 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?
Alteration to roof to form accommodation at second floor level.
Reference
24/02567/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Oct 2024
Validated
7 Nov 2024
Target date
2 Jan 2025
Decision date
2 Jan 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
24/02567/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Oct 2024
Validated
7 Nov 2024
Target date
2 Jan 2025
Decision date
2 Jan 2025
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 2 Jan 2025, delegated decision by Honey Olaiya — 11 weeks from submission (3 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Oct 2024
Application received
7 Nov 2024
Application validated
2 Jan 2025
Statutory target date
2 Jan 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Honey Olaiya
16 Oct 2024
Application received
7 Nov 2024
Application validated
2 Jan 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
2 Jan 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Honey Olaiya
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Due to the submission of inconsistent and unacceptable plans officers are unable to appropriately assess
the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property or the wider area.
The elements of the proposal which can be assessed such as the raised roof form and bulky dormer, it is
considered that there would be adverse impacts on the character or appearance of the area as a result of
the proposed development, in conflict with the Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
2
Notwithstanding the issues raised by the first reason for refusal, by reason of its bulk and increased
height, the proposed development would not appear subordinate or proportionate to the existing
dwellinghouse, would be excessive in scale, would sit uncomfortably with the host building and surrounding
properties and within the street scene which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of
the original property, thereby conflicting with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and policies
CS8, DM10 and DM12 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
1
Due to the submission of inconsistent and unacceptable plans officers are unable to appropriately assess
the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property or the wider area.
The elements of the proposal which can be assessed such as the raised roof form and bulky dormer, it is
considered that there would be adverse impacts on the character or appearance of the area as a result of
the proposed development, in conflict with the Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies CS8 and
DM10 of the Kingston Core Strategy (2012).
2
Notwithstanding the issues raised by the first reason for refusal, by reason of its bulk and increased
height, the proposed development would not appear subordinate or proportionate to the existing
dwellinghouse, would be excessive in scale, would sit uncomfortably with the host building and surrounding
properties and within the street scene which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of
the original property, thereby conflicting with Policies D3 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021 and policies
CS8, DM10 and DM12 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Policies cited
D3CS8DM10HC1DM12
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.