Planning application · Sutton
DM2021/01394.
Fairway The Drive Cheam Sutton SM2 7DJ
Householder at Fairway The Drive Cheam Sutton SM2 7DJ, received 2 Jul 2021 — refused on 22 Sep 2021 (delegated, Ben Rochford).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
22 Sep 2021
12 wks
Decision time
4 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
9
Documents
9 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 detached single storey garage and front boundary gate with brick piers.
Reference
DM2021/01394
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
2 Jul 2021
Validated
30 Jul 2021
Target date
3 Sep 2021
Decision date
22 Sep 2021
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2021/01394
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
2 Jul 2021
Validated
30 Jul 2021
Target date
3 Sep 2021
Decision date
22 Sep 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 22 Sep 2021, delegated decision by Ben Rochford — 12 weeks from submission (4 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
2 Jul 2021
Application received
30 Jul 2021
Application validated
3 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
22 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
2 Jul 2021
Application received
30 Jul 2021
Application validated
3 Sep 2021
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
22 Sep 2021
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Appeal
Appeal Allowed · Appeal Allowed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal, due to the scale, bulk and mass of the double garage, sliding gates and brick piers,
would appear excessively large, causing harm to the openness of the frontage, being readily visible and
overly prominent within the streetscene. The part-hip, part-gable roof would appear top-heavy, and the
garage would fail to relate sympathetically and subordinately to the main dwelling. This combined with the
sliding gate and brick piers would result in a degree of enclosure that would appear somewhat incongruous
and obtrusive. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and 'Design of
Residential Extensions' SPD4.
1
The proposal, due to the scale, bulk and mass of the double garage, sliding gates and brick piers,
would appear excessively large, causing harm to the openness of the frontage, being readily visible and
overly prominent within the streetscene. The part-hip, part-gable roof would appear top-heavy, and the
garage would fail to relate sympathetically and subordinately to the main dwelling. This combined with the
sliding gate and brick piers would result in a degree of enclosure that would appear somewhat incongruous
and obtrusive. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and 'Design of
Residential Extensions' SPD4.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28
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.