Planning application · Merton
25/P0315.
30 Borough Road, Mitcham, Merton, CR4 3DX
Full / Other Planning at 30 Borough Road, Mitcham, Merton, CR4 3DX, received 5 Feb 2025 — refused on 18 Dec 2025 (delegated, Leigh Harrington).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationMerton profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Dec 2025
45 wks
Decision time
37 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
21
Documents
21 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?
ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLINGHOUSE (2 BEDROOM, 3 PERSON) IN THE REAR PART OF THE SITE (RESIDENTIAL, USE CLASS C3). PLOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED IN TWO PLOTS WITH SHARED ACCESS ACCORDINGLY. THE EXISTING HOUSE AT THE FRONT OF THE PLOT REMAINS A HOME IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO, USE CLASS C4).
Reference
25/P0315
Type
Full Planning Permission
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR4 3DX
Ward
Council
Received
5 Feb 2025
Validated
12 May 2025
Target date
7 Jul 2025
Decision date
18 Dec 2025
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Decision Issued
Council register
Reference
25/P0315
Type
Full Planning Permission
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR4 3DX
Ward
Council
Received
5 Feb 2025
Validated
12 May 2025
Target date
7 Jul 2025
Decision date
18 Dec 2025
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 18 Dec 2025, delegated decision by Leigh Harrington — 45 weeks from submission (37 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Feb 2025
Application received
12 May 2025
Application validated
7 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
18 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Leigh Harrington
5 Feb 2025
Application received
12 May 2025
Application validated
7 Jul 2025
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
18 Dec 2025
Delegated decision: Refused · Leigh Harrington
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposals by reason of design, scale, bulk, usage and location would fail to enhance local
context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through
their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing street hierarchy,
building types, forms and proportions, or have sufficient distinctive merit so that the development
would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the built environment. This results in
an uncharacteristic backland residential building that represents a maximisation of the site's
development potential that fails relate to its location, contrary to the goals of London Plan 2021
Policy D3, Merton Local Plan 2024 Policies D12.1, D12.2 and D12.3.
2
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, Local Plan Policies T16.2 and T16.3.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
3
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of accommodation due to the narrow
access, inadequate refuse/recycling storage and failure to demonstrate adequate ceiling height, in
conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan.
4
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative impact on
local flood risk or would mitigate the impacts of flood risk on future occupiers contrary to policies SI
12 of the London Plan 2021 and F15.7 of the Merton Local Plan 2024.
1
The proposals by reason of design, scale, bulk, usage and location would fail to enhance local
context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through
their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing street hierarchy,
building types, forms and proportions, or have sufficient distinctive merit so that the development
would contribute positively to the character and appearance of the built environment. This results in
an uncharacteristic backland residential building that represents a maximisation of the site's
development potential that fails relate to its location, contrary to the goals of London Plan 2021
Policy D3, Merton Local Plan 2024 Policies D12.1, D12.2 and D12.3.
2
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, Local Plan Policies T16.2 and T16.3.
New Neighbour Notification Householder Prior Approval
3
The proposed development would result in a poor standard of accommodation due to the narrow
access, inadequate refuse/recycling storage and failure to demonstrate adequate ceiling height, in
conflict with Policy D6 of the London Plan.
Show all 4 rows
4
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative impact on
local flood risk or would mitigate the impacts of flood risk on future occupiers contrary to policies SI
12 of the London Plan 2021 and F15.7 of the Merton Local Plan 2024.
Policies cited
D3D12T6T16D6SI12F15.7
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.