Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
25/00141/FUL.
326 Hook Rise North Tolworth KT6 7LN
Full / Other Planning at 326 Hook Rise North Tolworth KT6 7LN — refused (delegated, Gosia Danik).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
no decision date
—
Decision time
submission → decision
—
Conditions
not captured
25
Documents
25 linked
—
Objections
not captured
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 roof extension with rear dormer to create a self-contained 2-bedroom, 3-person flat, access with a new external staircase at the rear of the property.
Reference
25/00141/FUL
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7LN
Ward
Council
Received
—
Decision date
—
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
25/00141/FUL
Type
Full Application
Show all 14 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7LN
Ward
Council
Received
—
Decision date
—
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, delegated decision by Gosia Danik.
Timeline
No dated events are recorded.
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
It has not been demonstrated that the provision of the external staircase would not adversely affect the
existing kitchen windows and therefore the amenities of the adjoining occupiers at the flats below at 326
Hook Rise North in terms of unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy, daylight and undue overlooking.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed staircase would not adversely affect the
amenities of potential future occupiers of 322-324 Hook Rise North in terms of undue overlooking, loss of
privacy and disturbance. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the
NPPF 2024, Policies D3 of the London Plan 2021 and DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
2
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of residential accommodation, as evidenced
by the failure to demonstrate adequate access to the proposed unit and usability of the proposed waste
and recycling storage. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021
and policies DM10 and DM13 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
3
It has not been demonstrated that integrated, well-designed, accessible and convenient recycling
facilities and cycle storage could be provided for the proposed unit and could be accommodated with the
suggested location, contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS9 and DM10 of the
Council's Core Strategy 2012.
4
In the absence of a legal agreement to ensure that future occupants of the proposed development would
be precluded from obtaining on-street car parking permits, the proposed development would lead to
inconsiderate parking and increase on-street car parking pressure and congestion in surrounding streets.
As such, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DM9
and DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy 2012.
1
It has not been demonstrated that the provision of the external staircase would not adversely affect the
existing kitchen windows and therefore the amenities of the adjoining occupiers at the flats below at 326
Hook Rise North in terms of unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy, daylight and undue overlooking.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed staircase would not adversely affect the
amenities of potential future occupiers of 322-324 Hook Rise North in terms of undue overlooking, loss of
privacy and disturbance. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the
NPPF 2024, Policies D3 of the London Plan 2021 and DM10 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
2
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of residential accommodation, as evidenced
by the failure to demonstrate adequate access to the proposed unit and usability of the proposed waste
and recycling storage. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021
and policies DM10 and DM13 of the Council's Core Strategy 2012.
3
It has not been demonstrated that integrated, well-designed, accessible and convenient recycling
facilities and cycle storage could be provided for the proposed unit and could be accommodated with the
suggested location, contrary to Policy T5 of the London Plan 2021 and policies CS9 and DM10 of the
Council's Core Strategy 2012.
Show all 4 rows
4
In the absence of a legal agreement to ensure that future occupants of the proposed development would
be precluded from obtaining on-street car parking permits, the proposed development would lead to
inconsiderate parking and increase on-street car parking pressure and congestion in surrounding streets.
As such, the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy T6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DM9
and DM10 of the Council's adopted LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Policies cited
D3DM10NPPFD6DM13T5CS9T6DM9
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.