Planning application · Merton
23/P3120.
9A Calonne Road, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 5HH
Full / Other Planning at 9A Calonne Road, Wimbledon, Merton, SW19 5HH, received 8 Nov 2023 — refused on 28 Feb 2024 (delegated, Charlotte Gilhooly).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
28 Feb 2024
16 wks
Decision time
8 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
22
Documents
22 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?
REMODELLING OF EXISTING HOUSE WITH ALTERATIONS TO THE FRONT AND AT ROOF LEVEL AND REAR EXTENSION INFILL.
Reference
23/P3120
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 5HH
Ward
Council
Received
8 Nov 2023
Validated
21 Nov 2023
Target date
29 Jan 2024
Decision date
28 Feb 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
23/P3120
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SW19 5HH
Ward
Council
Received
8 Nov 2023
Validated
21 Nov 2023
Target date
29 Jan 2024
Decision date
28 Feb 2024
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 28 Feb 2024, delegated decision by Charlotte Gilhooly — 16 weeks from submission (8 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
8 Nov 2023
Application received
21 Nov 2023
Application validated
29 Jan 2024
Statutory target date
28 Feb 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Charlotte Gilhooly
8 Nov 2023
Application received
21 Nov 2023
Application validated
29 Jan 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
28 Feb 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Charlotte Gilhooly
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed roof extension, increase in ridge height and part 1 part 2 side extension would
appear incongruous and visually dominant in the streetscene and is considered harmful to the
character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding Conservation Area. The
proposals are therefore considered to fail to comply with the principles of policies DM D1, DM D2,
DM D3 DM D4 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan 2014, policy CS14 of the LBM Core Strategy
2011 and policies D3, D4, D8 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposal, by reason of its siting, proximity to trees and in the absence of sufficient
arboricultural information, has failed to demonstrate that the scheme would safeguard the health
and longevity of all adjacent trees to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality and thus fail
to preserve or enhance the setting, character and appearance of the conservation area. The
scheme is thereby contrary to the NPPF and, in particular policies DM O2, DM D1, DM D2, DM D4
and DM D6 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan 2014 and policies G6 and G7 of the London Plan.
1
The proposed roof extension, increase in ridge height and part 1 part 2 side extension would
appear incongruous and visually dominant in the streetscene and is considered harmful to the
character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding Conservation Area. The
proposals are therefore considered to fail to comply with the principles of policies DM D1, DM D2,
DM D3 DM D4 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan 2014, policy CS14 of the LBM Core Strategy
2011 and policies D3, D4, D8 and HC1 of the London Plan 2021.
2
The proposal, by reason of its siting, proximity to trees and in the absence of sufficient
arboricultural information, has failed to demonstrate that the scheme would safeguard the health
and longevity of all adjacent trees to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality and thus fail
to preserve or enhance the setting, character and appearance of the conservation area. The
scheme is thereby contrary to the NPPF and, in particular policies DM O2, DM D1, DM D2, DM D4
and DM D6 of the Merton Sites and Policies Plan 2014 and policies G6 and G7 of the London Plan.
Policies cited
D4CS14D3D8HC1D6G6G7NPPF
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 · 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.