Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
25/00100/FUL.
93 Mount Road Chessington KT9 1JH
Full / Other Planning at 93 Mount Road Chessington KT9 1JH, received 17 Jan 2025 — refused on 5 Jun 2025 (delegated, Carmellena Hickey).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Jun 2025
20 wks
Decision time
12 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 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 one-bedroom house into two one-bedroom flats. Demolition of single storey rear extension and erection of part single storey/part two storey rear extension. Internal alterations.
Reference
25/00100/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 1JH
Council
Received
17 Jan 2025
Validated
31 Jan 2025
Target date
28 Mar 2025
Decision date
5 Jun 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
25/00100/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 1JH
Council
Received
17 Jan 2025
Validated
31 Jan 2025
Target date
28 Mar 2025
Decision date
5 Jun 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 5 Jun 2025, delegated decision by Carmellena Hickey — 20 weeks from submission (12 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
17 Jan 2025
Application received
31 Jan 2025
Application validated
28 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
5 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Carmellena Hickey
17 Jan 2025
Application received
31 Jan 2025
Application validated
28 Mar 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Jun 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Carmellena Hickey
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed accommodation would fail to comply with the minimum internal space standards in terms
of internal floor space and built in storage space for a single-storey 1-bed, 2-person unit, as set out in Table
3.1 of Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed
1st floor rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest principal habitable
room windows at No. 95 Mount Road in terms of daylight/sunlight. Given the scale of the extension and the
proximity of neighbouring windows it is considered that there is a likelihood that the development would
breach the "BRE 25 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the neighbouring dining room, 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.
1
The proposed accommodation would fail to comply with the minimum internal space standards in terms
of internal floor space and built in storage space for a single-storey 1-bed, 2-person unit, as set out in Table
3.1 of Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed
1st floor rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest principal habitable
room windows at No. 95 Mount Road in terms of daylight/sunlight. Given the scale of the extension and the
proximity of neighbouring windows it is considered that there is a likelihood that the development would
breach the "BRE 25 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the neighbouring dining room, 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.
Policies cited
Policy D6 of the London Plan 3.1D3DM10
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.