Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasMertonColliers Wood - historic ward20/P3364
Planning application · Merton

20/P3364.

BENNETS COURTYARD Watermill Way, Colliers Wood, Merton

Full / Other Planning at BENNETS COURTYARD Watermill Way, Colliers Wood, Merton, received 16 Oct 2020 — refused on 20 Jun 2022 by committee.

ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
20 Jun 2022
87 wks
Decision time
79 wks over the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
34
Documents
34 linked
0
Objections
not captured
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Merton 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?

IMPORTANT: You are being notified again as the decision of the Council to grant permission has been quashed by the Courts following a legal challenge on grounds pertaining to an omission of the Council's Conservation Officer in the officers' report to Committee. The decision has to be taken again. T

Reference
20/P3364
Type
Full Planning Permission
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
16 Oct 2020
Validated
4 Dec 2020
Target date
24 Sep 2021
Decision date
20 Jun 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decision Issued
Reference
20/P3364
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
16 Oct 2020
Validated
4 Dec 2020
Target date
24 Sep 2021
Decision date
20 Jun 2022
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Decision Issued
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Daylight Sunlight.pdf
Appeal Statement of Case - Appellant.pdf
Press Notice.pdf
Updated Sustainability Appraisal 13.04.2021.pdf
Proposed Plans.pdf
RPS Heritage.pdf
Design & Access Statement.pdf
Comments_Planning Casework Unit (Additional Comments).pdf
Application Form Redacted.pdf
Invalid Letter.pdf
Daylight Sunlight.pdf
Appeal Statement of Case - Appellant.pdf
Press Notice.pdf
Show all 10 rows
Updated Sustainability Appraisal 13.04.2021.pdf
Proposed Plans.pdf
RPS Heritage.pdf
Design & Access Statement.pdf
Comments_Planning Casework Unit (Additional Comments).pdf
Application Form Redacted.pdf
Invalid Letter.pdf

Documents open on the Merton portal. View the application page ↗

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 20 Jun 2022, determined by the planning committee — 87 weeks from submission (79 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
16 Oct 2020
Application received
4 Dec 2020
Application validated
24 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
20 Jun 2022
Committee decision: Refused
16 Oct 2020
Application received
4 Dec 2020
Application validated
24 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
20 Jun 2022
Committee decision: Refused

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed roof extensions, by reason of their form, design and appearance, would result in a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Wandle Valley Conservation Area. The public benefits of the proposed roof extensions, to provide 16 new residential units, are not considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Therefore, proposed development is contrary to Sections 12 and 16 of the NPPF 2021, Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2022 and Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014.
1
The proposed roof extensions, by reason of their form, design and appearance, would result in a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the Wandle Valley Conservation Area. The public benefits of the proposed roof extensions, to provide 16 new residential units, are not considered to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Therefore, proposed development is contrary to Sections 12 and 16 of the NPPF 2021, Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2022 and Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014.
Policies cited
HC1D3D4NPPF

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
0
Objections
0
People

Who is involved?

Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.