Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
24/03229/PAS2R.
Other at Land At Entrance To Footpath From Access Road For Land South Of Green Lane To Chalky Lane Green Lane Chessington, received 31 Dec 2024 — refused on 28 Feb 2025 (delegated, Lucy Bennett).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
28 Feb 2025
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 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?
Prior Approval for proposed change of use of agricultural buildings to 1no. self-contained residential unit (Use Class C3)
Reference
24/03229/PAS2R
Type
PA Storage or Light Ind to Residential
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
31 Dec 2024
Target date
25 Feb 2025
Decision date
28 Feb 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
24/03229/PAS2R
Type
PA Storage or Light Ind to Residential
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
31 Dec 2024
Target date
25 Feb 2025
Decision date
28 Feb 2025
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 28 Feb 2025, delegated decision by Lucy Bennett — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
31 Dec 2024
Application received
25 Feb 2025
Statutory target date
28 Feb 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Lucy Bennett
31 Dec 2024
Application received
25 Feb 2025
Statutory target date
28 Feb 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Lucy Bennett
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(a)
(as amended) as insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that, on the balance of
probability, the existing building is on an established agricultural unit and is, or previously, in use as
an agricultural building.
2
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(j)(i)
(as amended) as the proposed development involves the extensive refurbishment of the existing
building, well beyond the scope of conversion considered appropriate under Class Q, to be capable
of functioning as a dwellinghouse.
3
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(o)
(as amended) as proposed Bedroom 2 and 3 would be undersized and would not comply with the
nationally described space standards.
4
The proposed development fails to comply with condition Q.2(1)(a) specified under Class Q of Part 3, of
Schedule 2, of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended) as insufficient
information has been submitted to demonstrate the proposed site access arrangement would not
adversely impact the local road network in terms of function and safety.
1
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(a)
(as amended) as insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that, on the balance of
probability, the existing building is on an established agricultural unit and is, or previously, in use as
an agricultural building.
2
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(j)(i)
(as amended) as the proposed development involves the extensive refurbishment of the existing
building, well beyond the scope of conversion considered appropriate under Class Q, to be capable
of functioning as a dwellinghouse.
3
The proposed development fails to comply with the limitations of permitted development under Q.1(o)
(as amended) as proposed Bedroom 2 and 3 would be undersized and would not comply with the
nationally described space standards.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development fails to comply with condition Q.2(1)(a) specified under Class Q of Part 3, of
Schedule 2, of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended) as insufficient
information has been submitted to demonstrate the proposed site access arrangement would not
adversely impact the local road network in terms of function and safety.
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.