Planning application · Sutton
DM2020/01879.
Graylaw House 42-54 Manor Road Wallington SM6 0AB
Full / Other Planning at Graylaw House 42-54 Manor Road Wallington SM6 0AB, received 16 Nov 2020 — refused on 1 Apr 2021 (delegated, Iain Williams).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Apr 2021
19 wks
Decision time
11 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
50
Documents
50 linked
19
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 first floor rear extension, alterations to first floor fenestration and erection of a second floor to provide 5 self contained residential units, parking, cycle and bin storage.
Reference
DM2020/01879
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 0AB
Ward
Council
Received
16 Nov 2020
Validated
30 Nov 2020
Target date
1 Jan 2021
Decision date
1 Apr 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2020/01879
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 0AB
Ward
Council
Received
16 Nov 2020
Validated
30 Nov 2020
Target date
1 Jan 2021
Decision date
1 Apr 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 1 Apr 2021, delegated decision by Iain Williams — 19 weeks from submission (11 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Nov 2020
Application received
30 Nov 2020
Application validated
1 Jan 2021
Statutory target date
1 Apr 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Iain Williams
16 Nov 2020
Application received
30 Nov 2020
Application validated
1 Jan 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
1 Apr 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Iain Williams
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of the increase in scale and massing of the existing building
within a constrained site, with small separation distances to the adjoining dwellings to the north and the
utilitarian appearance of the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would result in
harm to the character and appearance of the Manor Road streetscene, and surrounding area. The
proposal would not take the opportunity to improve or enhance the appearance of the existing building or
the wider site and would reinforce the poor design and layout of the existing building. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policies D3 of the London Plan 2021, and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development, by reason of the increase in scale and massing and the short
separation distances to the Grade II listed building at 40 Manor Road and the adjoining Holy Trinity
Conservation Area and Wallington Green Conservation Area and the utilitarian appearance of the building,
would result in harm to the significance of the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building and the
settings of the adjacent conservation areas. The proposal due to the increase in massing and scale and
the reinforcement of the utilitarian design of the building would not preserve or enhance the setting of either
the adjacent Grade II listed building or the conservation areas and as such the proposal is contrary to
policies HC1 of the London Plan and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the shortfall in car parking below the maximum parking
standard in an area of established parking stress would result in overspill car parking to the detriment of the
safe and efficient operation of the public highway and would be contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the
London Plan 2021 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
4
The proposed development, without evidence to the contrary would not provide an adequate
Sustainable Urban Drainage System to adequately address surface water runoff and would result in the risk
of flooding of the site and neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SI 13 of
the London Plan and 32 of the Sutton Local Plan and paragraph 163 of the NPPF.
1
The proposed development, by reason of the increase in scale and massing of the existing building
within a constrained site, with small separation distances to the adjoining dwellings to the north and the
utilitarian appearance of the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would result in
harm to the character and appearance of the Manor Road streetscene, and surrounding area. The
proposal would not take the opportunity to improve or enhance the appearance of the existing building or
the wider site and would reinforce the poor design and layout of the existing building. The proposal is
therefore contrary to policies D3 of the London Plan 2021, and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development, by reason of the increase in scale and massing and the short
separation distances to the Grade II listed building at 40 Manor Road and the adjoining Holy Trinity
Conservation Area and Wallington Green Conservation Area and the utilitarian appearance of the building,
would result in harm to the significance of the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed building and the
settings of the adjacent conservation areas. The proposal due to the increase in massing and scale and
the reinforcement of the utilitarian design of the building would not preserve or enhance the setting of either
the adjacent Grade II listed building or the conservation areas and as such the proposal is contrary to
policies HC1 of the London Plan and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan.
3
The proposed development, by reason of the shortfall in car parking below the maximum parking
standard in an area of established parking stress would result in overspill car parking to the detriment of the
safe and efficient operation of the public highway and would be contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the
London Plan 2021 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposed development, without evidence to the contrary would not provide an adequate
Sustainable Urban Drainage System to adequately address surface water runoff and would result in the risk
of flooding of the site and neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SI 13 of
the London Plan and 32 of the Sutton Local Plan and paragraph 163 of the NPPF.
Policies cited
D3Sutton Local Plan 28HC1Sutton Local Plan 30T6T6.1Sutton Local Plan 37SI13Sutton Local Plan 32NPPF
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
19
In support
0
Total comments
19
Objections
19
In support
0
Total comments
19
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.