Planning Atlas
Planning AtlasMertonWimbledon Park ward24/P2508
Planning application · Merton

24/P2508.

REED HOUSE, 21 Durnsford Road, Wimbledon, Merton

Prior Approval at REED HOUSE, 21 Durnsford Road, Wimbledon, Merton, received 9 Sep 2024 — refused on 2 Dec 2024 (delegated, Calum McCulloch).

MertonWimbledon Park24/P2508
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
2 Dec 2024
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
Conditions
not captured
35
Documents
35 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?

APPLICATION FOR PRIOR APPROVAL UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 20, CLASS A OF THE GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PROPOSED ERECTION OF A SETBACK ONE STOREY UPWARDS EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING TO PROVIDE 25 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS (4X1-BED AND 21X STUDIO) AND ASSOCIATED WORKS TO INCLUDE REFUS

Reference
24/P2508
Type
Prior Approval - Coronavirus Regulations 2020
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
9 Sep 2024
Validated
7 Oct 2024
Target date
2 Dec 2024
Decision date
2 Dec 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Reference
24/P2508
Type
Prior Approval - Coronavirus Regulations 2020
Show all 15 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Council
Received
9 Sep 2024
Validated
7 Oct 2024
Target date
2 Dec 2024
Decision date
2 Dec 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Documents

What was filed?

Document
Published
View
Proposed Elevation 06.pdf
Existing Elevations 04 07 & 08.pdf
Existing Sections.pdf
Existing Bike Store.pdf
Delegated Report.pdf
Application Form Redacted.pdf
Existing Elevation 06.pdf
Proposed Elevation 01.pdf
Design & Access Statement.pdf
Proposed Elevation 02.pdf
Proposed Elevation 06.pdf
Existing Elevations 04 07 & 08.pdf
Existing Sections.pdf
Show all 10 rows
Existing Bike Store.pdf
Delegated Report.pdf
Application Form Redacted.pdf
Existing Elevation 06.pdf
Proposed Elevation 01.pdf
Design & Access Statement.pdf
Proposed Elevation 02.pdf

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

Decision

What happened?

Refused on 2 Dec 2024, delegated decision by Calum McCulloch — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).

Timeline

Date
Event
9 Sep 2024
Application received
7 Oct 2024
Application validated
2 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
2 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Calum McCulloch
9 Sep 2024
Application received
7 Oct 2024
Application validated
2 Dec 2024
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
2 Dec 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Calum McCulloch

Why it was refused

Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would be within 3km of an aerodrome, namely St George's Hospital Helipad, contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.1 (o) (vii) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
2
The proposal would have unacceptable transport and highways impacts contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (a) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended), and NPPF para 112 (b), (c),and (e). This due to lack of disabled, parking, insufficient design of car parking which would provide unsuitable access to the bike shed for cyclists. Furthermore no provision for EV charging is proposed.
3
The proposal would have an unacceptable external appearance when considered both in relation to the host building and in relation to the surrounding area contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (e) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
4
The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing and neighbouring occupiers by way of adverse impacts on outlook and adverse impact on daylight contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (g) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
1
The proposal would be within 3km of an aerodrome, namely St George's Hospital Helipad, contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.1 (o) (vii) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
2
The proposal would have unacceptable transport and highways impacts contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (a) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended), and NPPF para 112 (b), (c),and (e). This due to lack of disabled, parking, insufficient design of car parking which would provide unsuitable access to the bike shed for cyclists. Furthermore no provision for EV charging is proposed.
3
The proposal would have an unacceptable external appearance when considered both in relation to the host building and in relation to the surrounding area contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (e) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing and neighbouring occupiers by way of adverse impacts on outlook and adverse impact on daylight contrary to Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A A.2 (g) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).
Policies cited
NPPF para 112

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.