Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasMertonRaynes Park - historic ward22/P0952
Planning application · Merton

22/P0952.

STREET HUB AND ADVERTISEMENT DISPLAY ADJACENT 32 Coombe Lane, Raynes Park, Merton

Full / Other Planning at STREET HUB AND ADVERTISEMENT DISPLAY ADJACENT 32 Coombe Lane, Raynes Park, Merton, received 21 Mar 2022 — refused on 5 Sep 2023 (delegated, Martin Miranda Antelo).

ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Sep 2023
76 wks
Decision time
68 wks over the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
18
Documents
18 linked
3
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?

REMOVAL OF EXISTING BT PHONE BOX AND INSTALLATION OF A PROPOSED REPLACEMENT BT STREET HUB AND ASSOCIATED DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENT TO BOTH SIDES OF THE UNIT.

Reference
22/P0952
Type
Full Planning Permission
Agent / consultant
Council
Received
21 Mar 2022
Target date
16 May 2022
Decision date
5 Sep 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Reference
22/P0952
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 14 rows
Agent / consultant
Council
Received
21 Mar 2022
Target date
16 May 2022
Decision date
5 Sep 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Elevations.pdf
Cover Letter.pdf
Photo 2.pdf
Dimensions.JPG
Decision Notice.pdf
Street Hubs.pdf
Comments_Highways Officer_17.05.2022.pdf
Delegated Report.pdf
ApplicationFormRedacted.pdf
Photo 3.pdf
Elevations.pdf
Cover Letter.pdf
Photo 2.pdf
Show all 10 rows
Dimensions.JPG
Decision Notice.pdf
Street Hubs.pdf
Comments_Highways Officer_17.05.2022.pdf
Delegated Report.pdf
ApplicationFormRedacted.pdf
Photo 3.pdf

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

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 5 Sep 2023, delegated decision by Martin Miranda Antelo — 76 weeks from submission (68 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
21 Mar 2022
Application received
16 May 2022
Statutory target date
5 Sep 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Martin Miranda Antelo
21 Mar 2022
Application received
16 May 2022
Statutory target date
5 Sep 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Martin Miranda Antelo

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed BT Street Hub by reason of its design and location is considered to lead to the introduction of unnecessary and excessive street advertisement furniture that fails to complement the use and function of the space and leads to visual clutter and excessive levels of street advertisement to the detriment of the visual amenity of the local area, contrary to London Plan 2021 policy D8 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan 2014 policy DM D5.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed BT Street Hub would not have a detrimental impact to highways and pedestrian safety and vehicular movement along Lambton Road, Raynes Park. This would be contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy T6, Core Planning Strategy Policy CS18 and CS20, and Policies DMD2 and DMT2 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014.
1
The proposed BT Street Hub by reason of its design and location is considered to lead to the introduction of unnecessary and excessive street advertisement furniture that fails to complement the use and function of the space and leads to visual clutter and excessive levels of street advertisement to the detriment of the visual amenity of the local area, contrary to London Plan 2021 policy D8 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan 2014 policy DM D5.
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate the proposed BT Street Hub would not have a detrimental impact to highways and pedestrian safety and vehicular movement along Lambton Road, Raynes Park. This would be contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy T6, Core Planning Strategy Policy CS18 and CS20, and Policies DMD2 and DMT2 of the Sites and Policies Plan 2014.
Policies cited
DMD2DMT2T6

Public response

Measure
Count
Objections
3
Objections
3
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.