Planning application · Merton
22/P3154.
TROCHEE HOUSE, 66 Ridgway, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 4RA
Full / Other Planning at TROCHEE HOUSE, 66 Ridgway, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 4RA, received 24 Oct 2022 — refused on 15 Feb 2023 (delegated, Stephen Hill).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
15 Feb 2023
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 linked
—
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?
CONVERSION OF BUILDING FROM BEDSITS TO 2 X SELF-CONTAINED DWELLINGS INVOLVING PARTIAL DEMOLITION, EXTENSION AT REAR, NEW PART SIDE EXTENSION ON EAST SIDE TO CREATE SECONDARY ENTRANCE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW WINDOWS IN FLANK WALLS.
Reference
22/P3154
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 4RA
Ward
Council
Received
24 Oct 2022
Target date
15 Feb 2023
Decision date
15 Feb 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
22/P3154
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 4RA
Ward
Council
Received
24 Oct 2022
Target date
15 Feb 2023
Decision date
15 Feb 2023
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Merton portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 15 Feb 2023, delegated decision by Stephen Hill — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
24 Oct 2022
Application received
15 Feb 2023
Statutory target date
15 Feb 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Stephen Hill
24 Oct 2022
Application received
15 Feb 2023
Statutory target date
15 Feb 2023
Delegated decision: Refused · Stephen Hill
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, due to the combination of the height, bulk, massing and
design of the rear extensions would have a detrimental impact on the character and
appearance of the existing Locally Listed Building, neighbouring buildings, and the
immediate surrounding area. The impact on the existing building and its relationship
with its neighbours would cause harm to the positive contribution the buildings make
to the character and appearance of the Wimbledon West Conservation Area. This
would be contrary to Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the Adopted Sites and
Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014), Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy (2011)
and Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposed demolition of external fabric including the flank walls of the existing
Locally Listed Building, which together with its neighbours has been assessed as
making a positive contribution to the Wimbledon West Conservation Area, would have
a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the existing building,
neighbouring buildings, and the Wimbledon West Conservation Area amounting to
substantial harm. This would be contrary to Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the
Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014), Policy CS14 of the
Core Strategy (2011) and Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
3
The proposed development by reason of the position, scale, height and bulk of the
rear extensions represents an unneighbourly form of development that would be
unduly prominent, visually dominant and intrusive resulting in a sense of enclosure
which would be materially harmful to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, in
particular those at 64 and 68 Ridgway. The development is therefore contrary to policy
DM D2 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) which seeks to protect the
amenity of adjacent occupiers.
1
The proposed development, due to the combination of the height, bulk, massing and
design of the rear extensions would have a detrimental impact on the character and
appearance of the existing Locally Listed Building, neighbouring buildings, and the
immediate surrounding area. The impact on the existing building and its relationship
with its neighbours would cause harm to the positive contribution the buildings make
to the character and appearance of the Wimbledon West Conservation Area. This
would be contrary to Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the Adopted Sites and
Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014), Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy (2011)
and Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposed demolition of external fabric including the flank walls of the existing
Locally Listed Building, which together with its neighbours has been assessed as
making a positive contribution to the Wimbledon West Conservation Area, would have
a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the existing building,
neighbouring buildings, and the Wimbledon West Conservation Area amounting to
substantial harm. This would be contrary to Policies DM D2, DM D3 and DM D4 of the
Adopted Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps (July 2014), Policy CS14 of the
Core Strategy (2011) and Policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
3
The proposed development by reason of the position, scale, height and bulk of the
rear extensions represents an unneighbourly form of development that would be
unduly prominent, visually dominant and intrusive resulting in a sense of enclosure
which would be materially harmful to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, in
particular those at 64 and 68 Ridgway. The development is therefore contrary to policy
DM D2 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) which seeks to protect the
amenity of adjacent occupiers.
Policies cited
D4CS14HC1D3D2
Public response
Comment counts were not captured for this application.
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent as stated on the application
Case officer — delegated decision
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent as stated on the application
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.