Planning application · Sutton
DM2020/00985.
Rear Of 2-12 Lind Road Sutton SM1 4PJ
Full / Other Planning at Rear Of 2-12 Lind Road Sutton SM1 4PJ, received 6 Jul 2020 — refused on 7 Sep 2020 (delegated, Emmanuel Agyei).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
7 Sep 2020
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
26
Documents
26 linked
1
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?
Erection of a detached two storey building comprising of 4 self contained residential units with refuse and cycle storage.
Reference
DM2020/00985
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
6 Jul 2020
Validated
13 Jul 2020
Target date
14 Aug 2020
Decision date
7 Sep 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
DM2020/00985
Type
Full Application
Show all 17 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
6 Jul 2020
Validated
13 Jul 2020
Target date
14 Aug 2020
Decision date
7 Sep 2020
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
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 7 Sep 2020, delegated decision by Emmanuel Agyei — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
6 Jul 2020
Application received
13 Jul 2020
Application validated
14 Aug 2020
Statutory target date
7 Sep 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
6 Jul 2020
Application received
13 Jul 2020
Application validated
14 Aug 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
7 Sep 2020
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Without any evidence that the retention of the existing use will have an adverse effect on residential
amenity, that there is no reasonable prospect that this effect can be alleviated while retaining the use and
that the site has been marketed for a period of 12 months at a reasonable market rent without any success,
the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of an existing industrial land. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 4.4 of the
London Plan 2016 and Policy 14 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development would by reason of its layout and footprint within the site along with the
limited separation gap between the building and the access would appear as an incongruous and cramped
form of development. It would therefore fail to respect the pattern and grain of development within the
context and would have a significant harmful effect on the appearance of the existing industrial setting and
the surrounding Newtown Area of Special Local Character. It would therefore be contrary to the principles
of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016, Policies 1, 28
and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD 14 Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
3
The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate external private amenity areas,
proximity to the existing MOT station/car workshop adjacent to the site and lack of refuse/recycle storage,
fail to provide an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupiers in terms of noise, vibration and
disturbances and would be contrary to Policies 9 and 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD 14
Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
4
The proposal, by reason of the lack of on-site car parking, the lack of mitigation to prevent the future
occupiers of the development from obtaining car parking permits within the Sutton Town Centre controlled
car parking zone and without evidence to the contrary, would result in overspill car parking to the detriment
of other users of the public highway and the safe operation of the highway. As such the proposal would be
contrary to policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
5
Without evidence to the contrary, the application has failed to provide evidence that the proposal will
provide a satisfactory site drainage and reduction in flood risk. As such, the application would be contrary to
Policies 5.12 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy 32 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
6
Without any mitigation to the contrary the proposal by reason of the size of the proposed units
would fail to provide an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes contrary to the objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework and policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
1
Without any evidence that the retention of the existing use will have an adverse effect on residential
amenity, that there is no reasonable prospect that this effect can be alleviated while retaining the use and
that the site has been marketed for a period of 12 months at a reasonable market rent without any success,
the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of an existing industrial land. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 4.4 of the
London Plan 2016 and Policy 14 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development would by reason of its layout and footprint within the site along with the
limited separation gap between the building and the access would appear as an incongruous and cramped
form of development. It would therefore fail to respect the pattern and grain of development within the
context and would have a significant harmful effect on the appearance of the existing industrial setting and
the surrounding Newtown Area of Special Local Character. It would therefore be contrary to the principles
of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016, Policies 1, 28
and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD 14 Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
3
The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate external private amenity areas,
proximity to the existing MOT station/car workshop adjacent to the site and lack of refuse/recycle storage,
fail to provide an adequate standard of accommodation for future occupiers in terms of noise, vibration and
disturbances and would be contrary to Policies 9 and 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD 14
Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
Show all 6 rows
4
The proposal, by reason of the lack of on-site car parking, the lack of mitigation to prevent the future
occupiers of the development from obtaining car parking permits within the Sutton Town Centre controlled
car parking zone and without evidence to the contrary, would result in overspill car parking to the detriment
of other users of the public highway and the safe operation of the highway. As such the proposal would be
contrary to policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
5
Without evidence to the contrary, the application has failed to provide evidence that the proposal will
provide a satisfactory site drainage and reduction in flood risk. As such, the application would be contrary to
Policies 5.12 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy 32 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
6
Without any mitigation to the contrary the proposal by reason of the size of the proposed units
would fail to provide an acceptable mix of dwelling sizes contrary to the objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework and policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
Policies cited
London Plan 4.4Sutton Local Plan 14NPPFLondon Plan 7.4London Plan 7.6Sutton Local Plan 1Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 30Sutton Local Plan 9Sutton Local Plan 29Sutton Local Plan 36Sutton Local Plan 37London Plan 5.12Sutton Local Plan 32
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
Objections
1
In support
0
Total comments
1
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.