Full / Other Planning at 57 Garfield Road, Colliers Wood, London, Merton, SW19 8RZ, received 22 Mar 2021 — refused on 17 May 2021 (delegated, Historic Officer).
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?
ERECTION OF A GROUND FLOOR SIDE INFILL EXTENSION, INSTALLATION OF A FRONT ROOF EXTENSION (BAY WINDOW), AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE SECOND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION.
Refused on 17 May 2021, delegated decision by Historic Officer — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Mar 2021
Application received
17 May 2021
Statutory target date
17 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Historic Officer
22 Mar 2021
Application received
17 May 2021
Statutory target date
17 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Historic Officer
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed front roof extension (bay window), by virtue of its design and siting would disrupt the
unaltered roofline resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and
terrace in which it forms part of. In addition the proposed extension to the rear outrigger, by virtue
of its scale and siting, would result in a dominant and unsympathetic roof addition. Both elements
are considered contrary to policies DM D2 and DM D3 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and
Policies Maps (July 2014).
2
The proposed ground floor rear infill extension, by reason of its combined height, form and siting,
would be visually obtrusive and overly dominant, resulting in a loss of outlook and light, harmful to
the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would be therefore contrary to policies
DMD2 and DMD3 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014).
1
The proposed front roof extension (bay window), by virtue of its design and siting would disrupt the
unaltered roofline resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and
terrace in which it forms part of. In addition the proposed extension to the rear outrigger, by virtue
of its scale and siting, would result in a dominant and unsympathetic roof addition. Both elements
are considered contrary to policies DM D2 and DM D3 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and
Policies Maps (July 2014).
2
The proposed ground floor rear infill extension, by reason of its combined height, form and siting,
would be visually obtrusive and overly dominant, resulting in a loss of outlook and light, harmful to
the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The proposal would be therefore contrary to policies
DMD2 and DMD3 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014).
Policies cited
D3DMD2DMD3
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
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.