Planning application · Kingston Upon Thames
26/00455/HOU.
10 Wilson Road Chessington KT9 2HE
Householder at 10 Wilson Road Chessington KT9 2HE, received 2 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Honey Olaiya).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationKingston Upon Thames profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside 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?
Single storey rear extension with raised patio
Reference
26/00455/HOU
Type
Householder
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 2HE
Council
Received
2 Mar 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Refused
Council register
Reference
26/00455/HOU
Type
Householder
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT9 2HE
Council
Received
2 Mar 2026
Target date
27 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
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 27 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Honey Olaiya — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Mar 2026
Application received
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Honey Olaiya
2 Mar 2026
Application received
27 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Honey Olaiya
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would result in an unacceptably overbearing appearance and a significant
loss of outlook and daylight for the occupiers of No. 12 Wilson Road. This is due to the scale, depth, and
siting of the extension and the height of the associated raised patio. The proposal fails the BRE 45-degree
guideline when assessed in plan-form. In the absence of an elevational assessment, the Local Planning
Authority cannot be satisfied that neighbouring residential amenity is safeguarded. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy (2012),
and the Residential Design SPD.
1
The proposed development would result in an unacceptably overbearing appearance and a significant
loss of outlook and daylight for the occupiers of No. 12 Wilson Road. This is due to the scale, depth, and
siting of the extension and the height of the associated raised patio. The proposal fails the BRE 45-degree
guideline when assessed in plan-form. In the absence of an elevational assessment, the Local Planning
Authority cannot be satisfied that neighbouring residential amenity is safeguarded. The proposal is
therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy DM10 of the LDF Core Strategy (2012),
and the Residential Design SPD.
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.