Planning application · Sutton
DM2021/02491.
127 Woodcote Road Wallington Sutton SM6 0QD
Full / Other Planning at 127 Woodcote Road Wallington Sutton SM6 0QD, received 16 Dec 2021 — refused on 10 Feb 2022 (delegated, Lauren Liu).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
10 Feb 2022
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
32
Documents
32 linked
38
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?
Outline application for the demolition of existing semi-detached house and replacement block of 2 flats, detached 4-storey block of 7 flats, provision of 9 car parking spaces, 5 cycle storage spaces, refuse storage and modified vehicular access, and with access to be determined.
Reference
DM2021/02491
Type
Outline Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Dec 2021
Target date
4 Feb 2022
Decision date
10 Feb 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
DM2021/02491
Type
Outline Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
16 Dec 2021
Target date
4 Feb 2022
Decision date
10 Feb 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
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 10 Feb 2022, delegated decision by Lauren Liu — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
16 Dec 2021
Application received
4 Feb 2022
Statutory target date
10 Feb 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Lauren Liu
16 Dec 2021
Application received
4 Feb 2022
Statutory target date
10 Feb 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Lauren Liu
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development is unacceptable in principle as it would adversely affect the urban grain
and character of the street block and would appear as an overdevelopment of the application site. The
development fails to provide a policy compliant mixture of units and the loss of a residential dwelling has
not been supported by providing high quality and better designed residential accommodation. As such, the
proposal would fail to comply with Policies 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
Without evidence to the contrary, the proposed intensification of residential use to the front and rear
of the application site would prejudice the continual operation of the builders yard adjacent to the site at 129
Woodcote Road. The development is therefore contrary to Policy D13 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy
34 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
3
Without evidence to the contrary, the development would impact adversely on the light received to
the habitable rooms and private amenity space of southern-facing flats of Shirley Heights. The close
proximity of the flank elevation of the four storey building to the southern-facing flats of Shirley Heights
would also impact adversely on the sense of enclosure and outlook to the occupants of these flats. The
development is therefore contrary to Policies 13 and 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018
4
Flat 2 would not be provided with adequate sunlight/daylight and outlook for future occupants due to
the provision of a single window shared between two bedrooms. The development also provides
inadequate private amenity space for all units and Flat A would not benefit from adequate levels of privacy
due to the proximity of private amenity space to the parking spaces and entrance to the four storey block.
The development therefore fails to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 9 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018.
5
Without evidence to the contrary, the proposed access would not allow for adequate visibility on the
public highway and would impact adversely on the safe and efficient use of the public highway. The
proposed access path would also fail to allow the passing of two cars and presents another highway safety
risk. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
6
The proposal fails to provide an energy statement or accompany as-designed SAP outputs, floor
risk management and associated site drainage/SuDS measures and internal potable water consumption for
each dwellings and as such would fail to comply with Policies 31, 32 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
7
Insufficient evidence has been submitted to enable an informed judgement on whether there are
bats on site and the impacts on the potential loss of foraging habitat. Furthermore, in the absence of a
completed Section 106 legal agreement, the propsal fails to delivery biodiversity net gain or payment
through the biodiversity tariff contrary to Policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
1
The proposed development is unacceptable in principle as it would adversely affect the urban grain
and character of the street block and would appear as an overdevelopment of the application site. The
development fails to provide a policy compliant mixture of units and the loss of a residential dwelling has
not been supported by providing high quality and better designed residential accommodation. As such, the
proposal would fail to comply with Policies 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
Without evidence to the contrary, the proposed intensification of residential use to the front and rear
of the application site would prejudice the continual operation of the builders yard adjacent to the site at 129
Woodcote Road. The development is therefore contrary to Policy D13 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy
34 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
3
Without evidence to the contrary, the development would impact adversely on the light received to
the habitable rooms and private amenity space of southern-facing flats of Shirley Heights. The close
proximity of the flank elevation of the four storey building to the southern-facing flats of Shirley Heights
would also impact adversely on the sense of enclosure and outlook to the occupants of these flats. The
development is therefore contrary to Policies 13 and 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018
Show all 7 rows
4
Flat 2 would not be provided with adequate sunlight/daylight and outlook for future occupants due to
the provision of a single window shared between two bedrooms. The development also provides
inadequate private amenity space for all units and Flat A would not benefit from adequate levels of privacy
due to the proximity of private amenity space to the parking spaces and entrance to the four storey block.
The development therefore fails to comply with Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 9 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018.
5
Without evidence to the contrary, the proposed access would not allow for adequate visibility on the
public highway and would impact adversely on the safe and efficient use of the public highway. The
proposed access path would also fail to allow the passing of two cars and presents another highway safety
risk. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
6
The proposal fails to provide an energy statement or accompany as-designed SAP outputs, floor
risk management and associated site drainage/SuDS measures and internal potable water consumption for
each dwellings and as such would fail to comply with Policies 31, 32 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
7
Insufficient evidence has been submitted to enable an informed judgement on whether there are
bats on site and the impacts on the potential loss of foraging habitat. Furthermore, in the absence of a
completed Section 106 legal agreement, the propsal fails to delivery biodiversity net gain or payment
through the biodiversity tariff contrary to Policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 7Sutton Local Plan 9Sutton Local Plan 10Sutton Local Plan 13D13Sutton Local Plan 34Sutton Local Plan 29D6Sutton Local Plan 36Sutton Local Plan 37Sutton Local Plan 31Sutton Local Plan 32Sutton Local Plan 33Sutton Local Plan 26
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
38
In support
0
Total comments
38
Objections
38
In support
0
Total comments
38
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.