Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasKingston Upon ThamesTolworth ward25/02428/HOU
Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames

25/02428/HOU.

158 Hamilton Avenue Tolworth KT6 7PZ

Householder at 158 Hamilton Avenue Tolworth KT6 7PZ, received 17 Sep 2025 — refused on 27 Nov 2025 (delegated, Carmellena Hickey).

Kingston Upon ThamesTolworthKT6 7PZ25/02428/HOU
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Nov 2025
10 wks
Decision time
2 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?

Demolition of an existing rear conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension.

Reference
25/02428/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7PZ
Received
17 Sep 2025
Validated
9 Oct 2025
Target date
4 Dec 2025
Decision date
27 Nov 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Reference
25/02428/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT6 7PZ
Received
17 Sep 2025
Validated
9 Oct 2025
Target date
4 Dec 2025
Decision date
27 Nov 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
DECISION NOTICE - REFUSE - HOU
27 Nov 2025
45 Degree Plan
9 Oct 2025
Application Form (No personal data)
17 Sept 2025
01
17 Sept 2025
04
17 Sept 2025
Proposed Elevations
17 Sept 2025
03
17 Sept 2025
Proposed Floor Plans
17 Sept 2025
DECISION NOTICE - REFUSE - HOU
27 Nov 2025
45 Degree Plan
9 Oct 2025
Application Form (No personal data)
17 Sept 2025
Show all 8 rows
01
17 Sept 2025
04
17 Sept 2025
Proposed Elevations
17 Sept 2025
03
17 Sept 2025
Proposed Floor Plans
17 Sept 2025

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 27 Nov 2025, delegated decision by Carmellena Hickey — 10 weeks from submission (2 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
17 Sep 2025
Application received
9 Oct 2025
Application validated
4 Dec 2025
Statutory target date
27 Nov 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Carmellena Hickey
17 Sep 2025
Application received
9 Oct 2025
Application validated
4 Dec 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
27 Nov 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Carmellena Hickey

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest habitable room windows at No. 160 Hamilton Avenue 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 45 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the neighbouring habitable room, which in turn would harm the residential amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
1
The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of cogent information that the proposed rear extension would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the closest habitable room windows at No. 160 Hamilton Avenue 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 45 Degree Rule" and reduce light entering into the neighbouring habitable room, which in turn would harm the residential amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy 2012.
Policies cited
D3DM10

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.