Planning application · Sutton
DM2021/01181.
66 Lindsay Road Worcester Park KT4 8LE
Householder at 66 Lindsay Road Worcester Park KT4 8LE, received 7 Jun 2021 — refused on 11 Oct 2021 (delegated, Emmanuel Agyei).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
11 Oct 2021
18 wks
Decision time
10 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 linked
0
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?
Erection of a first floor rear extension, a single storey rear extension and alterations to the front fenestration.
Reference
DM2021/01181
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT4 8LE
Ward
Council
Received
7 Jun 2021
Validated
16 Aug 2021
Target date
23 Sep 2021
Decision date
11 Oct 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2021/01181
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
KT4 8LE
Ward
Council
Received
7 Jun 2021
Validated
16 Aug 2021
Target date
23 Sep 2021
Decision date
11 Oct 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 11 Oct 2021, delegated decision by Emmanuel Agyei — 18 weeks from submission (10 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Jun 2021
Application received
16 Aug 2021
Application validated
23 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
11 Oct 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
7 Jun 2021
Application received
16 Aug 2021
Application validated
23 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
11 Oct 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal due to the excessive depth and design would fail to relate sympathetically or
subordinately to the existing dwelling, appearing overly dominant and significantly altering the appearance
of the host building. The proposal would result in an incongruous appearance that would cause significant
and unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area. As such, the
proposal would be contrary to policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development by reason of the excessive depth, particularly at ground floor level and
close proximity to the site boundaries would be visually overbearing resulting in a sense of enclosure,
adversely impacting the amenities of the adjoining occupier at 64 Lindsay Road in terms of outlook . As
such the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan.
1
The proposal due to the excessive depth and design would fail to relate sympathetically or
subordinately to the existing dwelling, appearing overly dominant and significantly altering the appearance
of the host building. The proposal would result in an incongruous appearance that would cause significant
and unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area. As such, the
proposal would be contrary to policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development by reason of the excessive depth, particularly at ground floor level and
close proximity to the site boundaries would be visually overbearing resulting in a sense of enclosure,
adversely impacting the amenities of the adjoining occupier at 64 Lindsay Road in terms of outlook . As
such the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 29
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Allowed
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
Appeal Allowed
Outcome: Appeal Allowed
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.