Planning application · Sutton
DM2020/01972.
Sutton Point - Unit 3 Sutton Court Road Sutton SM1 4TY
Full / Other Planning at Sutton Point - Unit 3 Sutton Court Road Sutton SM1 4TY, received 25 Nov 2020 — refused on 19 Jan 2021 (delegated, Luke Simpson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 Jan 2021
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
12
Documents
12 linked
10
Objections
1 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?
Change of Use of ground floor Unit 3 from retail use to assembly and leisure use.
Reference
DM2020/01972
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 4TY
Ward
Council
Received
25 Nov 2020
Target date
8 Jan 2021
Decision date
19 Jan 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2020/01972
Type
Full Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 4TY
Ward
Council
Received
25 Nov 2020
Target date
8 Jan 2021
Decision date
19 Jan 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 19 Jan 2021, delegated decision by Luke Simpson — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
25 Nov 2020
Application received
8 Jan 2021
Statutory target date
19 Jan 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Luke Simpson
25 Nov 2020
Application received
8 Jan 2021
Statutory target date
19 Jan 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Luke Simpson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
Despite seeking clarification from the application, insufficient information has been submitted in
respect of the proposed use of the unit to which this application applies. Therefore, it is not possible to
assess the potential impacts of the proposed use or its acceptability for the site as a town centre location
surrounded by other immediate uses. As such it is considered the application fails to comply with Policies 3
and 18 of the Sutton Local Plan.
2
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in harm
to the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, or that it would not result in harm to more
immediate uses by virtue of resultant noise and vibration. The proposal therefore fails to comply with
Policies 29 and 34 of the Sutton Local Plan, which establishes that noise sensitive developments should be
separated from developments that would generate noise and vibration.
3
Despite requests from the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to provide details of
how delivery and servicing vehicles visiting the site would be managed. As such it has not been
demonstrated that the proposed use would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the operation of
the A232, which is a TFL Red Route, by encouraging indescriminate parking outside of the premises. As
such it is considered that the development proposal fails to comply with Policy 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
1
Despite seeking clarification from the application, insufficient information has been submitted in
respect of the proposed use of the unit to which this application applies. Therefore, it is not possible to
assess the potential impacts of the proposed use or its acceptability for the site as a town centre location
surrounded by other immediate uses. As such it is considered the application fails to comply with Policies 3
and 18 of the Sutton Local Plan.
2
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in harm
to the amenity of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, or that it would not result in harm to more
immediate uses by virtue of resultant noise and vibration. The proposal therefore fails to comply with
Policies 29 and 34 of the Sutton Local Plan, which establishes that noise sensitive developments should be
separated from developments that would generate noise and vibration.
3
Despite requests from the Local Planning Authority, the applicant has failed to provide details of
how delivery and servicing vehicles visiting the site would be managed. As such it has not been
demonstrated that the proposed use would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the operation of
the A232, which is a TFL Red Route, by encouraging indescriminate parking outside of the premises. As
such it is considered that the development proposal fails to comply with Policy 37 of the Sutton Local Plan.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 3Sutton Local Plan 18Sutton Local Plan 29Sutton Local Plan 34Sutton Local Plan 37
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
10
In support
1
Total comments
11
Objections
10
In support
1
Total comments
11
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.