Planning application · Merton
24/P1387.
360 - 364 London Road, Mitcham, Merton, CR4 3ND
Full / Other Planning at 360 - 364 London Road, Mitcham, Merton, CR4 3ND, received 17 May 2024 — refused on 19 Sep 2024 (delegated, Leigh Harrington).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Sep 2024
18 wks
Decision time
10 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
36
Documents
36 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?
CHANGE OF USE OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FLEXIBLE COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE AT GROUND FLOOR LEVEL INTO 3 X SELF-CONTAINED APARTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT.
Reference
24/P1387
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR4 3ND
Ward
Council
Received
17 May 2024
Validated
13 Jun 2024
Target date
30 Sep 2024
Decision date
19 Sep 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Under Appeal
Council register
Reference
24/P1387
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR4 3ND
Ward
Council
Received
17 May 2024
Validated
13 Jun 2024
Target date
30 Sep 2024
Decision date
19 Sep 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Under Appeal
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
Documents open on the Merton portal. View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 19 Sep 2024, delegated decision by Leigh Harrington — 18 weeks from submission (10 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
17 May 2024
Application received
13 Jun 2024
Application validated
30 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
19 Sep 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Leigh Harrington
17 May 2024
Application received
13 Jun 2024
Application validated
30 Sep 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
19 Sep 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Leigh Harrington
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
In the absence of satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the lack of demand for the continued use of
the existing commercial use in employment generating and/or community uses, the loss of existing
non-residential sites is considered contrary to the aims and objectives of, in particular, policy E4 of
the London Plan (2021), policies DM E3 and DM R4 of the Adopted Merton Sites and Polices Plan
(2014) and policies CS3 and CS12 of Core Strategy (2011).
2
The proposals by virtue of siting, design and layout would provide inadequate privacy and outlook
resulting in a cramped and substandard living condition and environment to the detriment of the
amenities of future occupiers. The scheme is contrary to London Plan Policies D3, D14 & SI 1,
Adopted Merton Sites and Policies Plan policies DM D2, DM EP2 and DM EP4, Housing Design
Standards London Plan Guidance 2023 standard C2.5 and DCLG Technical Housing Standards -
Nationally Described Space Standard 2015.
3
In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Design, it
has not been demonstrated the scheme would safeguard the risk of flooding in the locality. The
proposal is contrary to, in particular, London Plan policy SI 13, Merton Core Strategy (2011) policy
CS16 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) policies DM F1 and DM F2.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
4
The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would secure a net
biodiversity gain. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy G6 of the London Plan 2021.
5
In the absence of a parking survey to demonstrate there is capacity in the locality to accommodate
the additional parking demand, the proposal would result in an increased demand for on-street
parking, resulting in a detrimental impact on highway and additional parking pressure locally and be
contrary to the Mayor and the Council's commitment to reducing car usage and promoting more
sustainable forms of transport. The proposal would therefore be contrary to, in particular, policy T6
of the London Plan 2021, Policy DM T1, T2 and T3 of Merton's Sites and Policies Plan 2014 and
Policy CS20 of Merton's Core Planning Strategy 2011.
1
In the absence of satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the lack of demand for the continued use of
the existing commercial use in employment generating and/or community uses, the loss of existing
non-residential sites is considered contrary to the aims and objectives of, in particular, policy E4 of
the London Plan (2021), policies DM E3 and DM R4 of the Adopted Merton Sites and Polices Plan
(2014) and policies CS3 and CS12 of Core Strategy (2011).
2
The proposals by virtue of siting, design and layout would provide inadequate privacy and outlook
resulting in a cramped and substandard living condition and environment to the detriment of the
amenities of future occupiers. The scheme is contrary to London Plan Policies D3, D14 & SI 1,
Adopted Merton Sites and Policies Plan policies DM D2, DM EP2 and DM EP4, Housing Design
Standards London Plan Guidance 2023 standard C2.5 and DCLG Technical Housing Standards -
Nationally Described Space Standard 2015.
3
In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment incorporating Sustainable Urban Drainage Design, it
has not been demonstrated the scheme would safeguard the risk of flooding in the locality. The
proposal is contrary to, in particular, London Plan policy SI 13, Merton Core Strategy (2011) policy
CS16 and Merton Sites and Policies Plan (2014) policies DM F1 and DM F2.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
Show all 5 rows
4
The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would secure a net
biodiversity gain. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy G6 of the London Plan 2021.
5
In the absence of a parking survey to demonstrate there is capacity in the locality to accommodate
the additional parking demand, the proposal would result in an increased demand for on-street
parking, resulting in a detrimental impact on highway and additional parking pressure locally and be
contrary to the Mayor and the Council's commitment to reducing car usage and promoting more
sustainable forms of transport. The proposal would therefore be contrary to, in particular, policy T6
of the London Plan 2021, Policy DM T1, T2 and T3 of Merton's Sites and Policies Plan 2014 and
Policy CS20 of Merton's Core Planning Strategy 2011.
Policies cited
E4R4CS3CS12D3D14SI1G6T6T1T2T3CS20
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.