Planning application · Sutton
DM2020/01238.
Land To The Rear Of 84/90 Egmont Road Langley Park Road Sutton SM2 5JS
Full / Other Planning at Land To The Rear Of 84/90 Egmont Road Langley Park Road Sutton SM2 5JS, received 12 Aug 2020 — refused on 17 May 2021 (delegated, Polly Davidson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
17 May 2021
40 wks
Decision time
32 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
26
Documents
26 linked
5
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Allowed
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?
Demolition of existing studios and garage and erection of a two storey detached dwelling with raised rear terrace and provision of refuse and cycle storage areas.
Reference
DM2020/01238
Type
Full Application
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM2 5JS
Ward
Council
Received
12 Aug 2020
Validated
20 Aug 2020
Target date
7 Oct 2020
Decision date
17 May 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2020/01238
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM2 5JS
Ward
Council
Received
12 Aug 2020
Validated
20 Aug 2020
Target date
7 Oct 2020
Decision date
17 May 2021
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 17 May 2021, delegated decision by Polly Davidson — 40 weeks from submission (32 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
12 Aug 2020
Application received
20 Aug 2020
Application validated
7 Oct 2020
Statutory target date
17 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Polly Davidson
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
12 Aug 2020
Application received
20 Aug 2020
Application validated
7 Oct 2020
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
17 May 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Polly Davidson
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal is considered unacceptable in principle as it would result in a development that would
appear cramped in its setting, representing an overdevelopment of this restricted site and would fail to
respect the existing form and pattern of development in the area. As a result the proposal would result in a
development that would appear visually incongruous in its setting and within the streetscene. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy D3 of the
London Plan 2021, policies 13 and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary
Planning Document 14: Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
2
The proposed design of the detached two storey dwelling would fail to respect or improve the
character of the area as the proposed dwelling would appear incongruous and discordant in its immediate
context. As such the proposal would fail to respect the character and appearance of the local area contrary
to policy D3 of the London Plan and policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan
3
The proposed development by reason of the close proximity to the site boundaries and height of
developement would adversely impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers fronting Egmont Road.
As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan.
4
Without evidence to the contrary, the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will
provide a satisfactorily reduction in carbon emissions, site drainage/SuDS measures and water efficiency
measures. As such, the application would be contrary to Policies SI 2, 3, 5 of the London Plan 2021 and
Policies 31, 32 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
1
The proposal is considered unacceptable in principle as it would result in a development that would
appear cramped in its setting, representing an overdevelopment of this restricted site and would fail to
respect the existing form and pattern of development in the area. As a result the proposal would result in a
development that would appear visually incongruous in its setting and within the streetscene. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy D3 of the
London Plan 2021, policies 13 and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan and the Council's adopted Supplementary
Planning Document 14: Creating Locally Distinctive Places.
2
The proposed design of the detached two storey dwelling would fail to respect or improve the
character of the area as the proposed dwelling would appear incongruous and discordant in its immediate
context. As such the proposal would fail to respect the character and appearance of the local area contrary
to policy D3 of the London Plan and policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan
3
The proposed development by reason of the close proximity to the site boundaries and height of
developement would adversely impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers fronting Egmont Road.
As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan.
Show all 4 rows
4
Without evidence to the contrary, the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will
provide a satisfactorily reduction in carbon emissions, site drainage/SuDS measures and water efficiency
measures. As such, the application would be contrary to Policies SI 2, 3, 5 of the London Plan 2021 and
Policies 31, 32 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
Policies cited
D3Sutton Local Plan 13Sutton Local Plan 28NPPFSutton Local Plan 29SI2London Plan 3London Plan 5Sutton Local Plan 31Sutton Local Plan 32Sutton Local Plan 33
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Allowed
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
Appeal Allowed
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
5
In support
0
Total comments
5
Objections
5
In support
0
Total comments
5
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.