Planning application · Sutton
DM2020/00369.
19 Little Woodcote Estate, Smallholdings Woodmansterne Road Carshalton SM5 4AL
Householder at 19 Little Woodcote Estate, Smallholdings Woodmansterne Road Carshalton SM5 4AL, received 6 Mar 2020 — refused on 18 Jun 2020 (delegated, Denuka Gunaratne).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
18 Jun 2020
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
0
Objections
0 in support
No
Appeal
none recorded
Record from the Sutton 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?
Alteration and extension of existing storage building in connection with the conversion of existing storage buildings to form a single storey detached annexe in rear garden land to main house.
Reference
DM2020/00369
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
6 Mar 2020
Validated
7 May 2020
Target date
5 Jun 2020
Decision date
18 Jun 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2020/00369
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
6 Mar 2020
Validated
7 May 2020
Target date
5 Jun 2020
Decision date
18 Jun 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Documents open on the Sutton portal (the portal needs its documents tab opened first — the link handles that). View the application page ↗
Decision
What happened?
Refused on 18 Jun 2020, delegated decision by Denuka Gunaratne — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
6 Mar 2020
Application received
7 May 2020
Application validated
5 Jun 2020
Statutory target date
18 Jun 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Denuka Gunaratne
6 Mar 2020
Application received
7 May 2020
Application validated
5 Jun 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
18 Jun 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Denuka Gunaratne
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed conversion and extension of the detached outbuildings into a habitable
accommodation due to its excessive size and scale and the potential for an separate independent access is
not considered to be ancillary or 'incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house' as defined by
S55(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and is considered a material change of use to the
building as defined by S55(3)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2
The proposal represents an inappropriate and disproportionate incursion within the Green Belt,
which would result in significant demonstrable harm to the open character and appearance of the Green
Belt and therefore an unacceptable development by definition. The development is therefore contrary to the
objectives and purposes of the Green Belt and as such, the development is contrary to Policy 24 of the
Local Plan and Policy 7.16 of the London Plan 2016 and the NPPF.
3
The proposal by reason of its excessive size, and scale would result in a disproportionate and
overly dominant form of development which would erode and adversely affect the character and
appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 28 of the Local Plan 2018 and
Sutton's Urban Design Guide SPD 14.
1
The proposed conversion and extension of the detached outbuildings into a habitable
accommodation due to its excessive size and scale and the potential for an separate independent access is
not considered to be ancillary or 'incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house' as defined by
S55(2)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and is considered a material change of use to the
building as defined by S55(3)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2
The proposal represents an inappropriate and disproportionate incursion within the Green Belt,
which would result in significant demonstrable harm to the open character and appearance of the Green
Belt and therefore an unacceptable development by definition. The development is therefore contrary to the
objectives and purposes of the Green Belt and as such, the development is contrary to Policy 24 of the
Local Plan and Policy 7.16 of the London Plan 2016 and the NPPF.
3
The proposal by reason of its excessive size, and scale would result in a disproportionate and
overly dominant form of development which would erode and adversely affect the character and
appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 28 of the Local Plan 2018 and
Sutton's Urban Design Guide SPD 14.
Policies cited
Local Plan 24London Plan 7.16NPPFLocal Plan 28
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
Objections
0
In support
0
Total comments
0
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.