Planning application · Merton
22/P0812.
81 Wimbledon Hill Road, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 7QS
Full / Other Planning at 81 Wimbledon Hill Road, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 7QS, received 22 Feb 2022 — refused on 30 Jan 2023 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
30 Jan 2023
49 wks
Decision time
41 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
82
Documents
82 linked
29
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?
DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF A FIVE STOREY RESIDENTIAL BLOCK COMPRISING 17 x SELF-CONTAINED FLATS (1 x 3 BED, 15 X 2 BED & 2 X 1 BED) PLUS 1 x DETACHED 3 BED DWELLINGHOUSE ARRANGED OVER 2 FLOORS (GROUND FLOOR AND BASEMENT).
Reference
22/P0812
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 7QS
Council
Received
22 Feb 2022
Target date
24 May 2022
Decision date
30 Jan 2023
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Under Appeal
Council register
Reference
22/P0812
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 7QS
Council
Received
22 Feb 2022
Target date
24 May 2022
Decision date
30 Jan 2023
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Under Appeal
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Merton portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 30 Jan 2023, determined by the planning committee — 49 weeks from submission (41 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
22 Feb 2022
Application received
24 May 2022
Statutory target date
30 Jan 2023
Committee decision: Refused
22 Feb 2022
Application received
24 May 2022
Statutory target date
30 Jan 2023
Committee decision: Refused
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development by virtue of its height, massing, bulk, design and siting would be
visually intrusive, overbearing and be an un-neighbourly form of development to the neighbouring
properties which adjoin the application site, and would fail to respond to the local distinctiveness
and character of the local area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM D2 (Design
considerations in all developments) of Merton's Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy
CS 14 (Design) of the LBM Core Strategy 2011 and Policy D3 (optimising site capacity through the
design-led approach) of the London Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development could generate affordable housing provision, in the absence of a legal
agreement securing on-site affordable housing and an early and late stage viability review within,
the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM H3 (support for affordable housing) of Merton's
Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy CS8 (Housing Choice) of Merton's Adopted
Core Planning Strategy (July 2011), and Policies H4 (Delivering Affordable Housing) and H5
(Threshold approach to applications) of the London Plan (2021).
3
In the absence of a legal agreement securing carbon offset contributions, the proposals would fail
to achieve energy efficiency improvements such that they would make the fullest contribution
towards minimising carbon dioxide emissions to the detriment of mitigating against the potential
impact on climate change. The proposals would therefore fail to comply with Policy CS 15 (Climate
change) of Merton's Adopted Core Planning strategy (July 2011), and Policies SI2 (Minimising
greenhouse gas emissions) and SI4 (Managing heat risk) of the London Plan (2021).
4
The proposed development would generate additional pressure on parking in the area, and in the
absence of a legal agreement securing a car free agreement, the proposal would be contrary to
Policies DM T1 (support for sustainable transport and active travel) and DM T3 (Car parking and
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
servicing standards) of Merton's Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy CS20
(Parking, servicing and delivery) of Merton's Adopted Core Planning Strategy (July 2011) and
Policies T6 (Car Parking) and T6.1 (Residential Parking) of the London Plan (2021).
1
The proposed development by virtue of its height, massing, bulk, design and siting would be
visually intrusive, overbearing and be an un-neighbourly form of development to the neighbouring
properties which adjoin the application site, and would fail to respond to the local distinctiveness
and character of the local area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DM D2 (Design
considerations in all developments) of Merton's Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy
CS 14 (Design) of the LBM Core Strategy 2011 and Policy D3 (optimising site capacity through the
design-led approach) of the London Plan (2021).
2
The proposed development could generate affordable housing provision, in the absence of a legal
agreement securing on-site affordable housing and an early and late stage viability review within,
the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM H3 (support for affordable housing) of Merton's
Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy CS8 (Housing Choice) of Merton's Adopted
Core Planning Strategy (July 2011), and Policies H4 (Delivering Affordable Housing) and H5
(Threshold approach to applications) of the London Plan (2021).
3
In the absence of a legal agreement securing carbon offset contributions, the proposals would fail
to achieve energy efficiency improvements such that they would make the fullest contribution
towards minimising carbon dioxide emissions to the detriment of mitigating against the potential
impact on climate change. The proposals would therefore fail to comply with Policy CS 15 (Climate
change) of Merton's Adopted Core Planning strategy (July 2011), and Policies SI2 (Minimising
greenhouse gas emissions) and SI4 (Managing heat risk) of the London Plan (2021).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development would generate additional pressure on parking in the area, and in the
absence of a legal agreement securing a car free agreement, the proposal would be contrary to
Policies DM T1 (support for sustainable transport and active travel) and DM T3 (Car parking and
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
servicing standards) of Merton's Adopted Sites and Policies Plan (July 2014), Policy CS20
(Parking, servicing and delivery) of Merton's Adopted Core Planning Strategy (July 2011) and
Policies T6 (Car Parking) and T6.1 (Residential Parking) of the London Plan (2021).
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
29
Objections
29
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent as stated on the application
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent as stated on the application
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.