Planning application · Sutton
DM2022/00004.
39 Oldfields Road Sutton SM1 2NB
Full / Other Planning at 39 Oldfields Road Sutton SM1 2NB, received 4 Jan 2022 — refused on 7 Oct 2022 (delegated, Ben Rochford).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
7 Oct 2022
39 wks
Decision time
31 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
34
Documents
34 linked
2
Objections
0 in support
Yes
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed
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?
Demolition of the existing bungalow and detached single storey rear storage shed, erection of 2x two storey semi detached dwellings with rear dormers and accommodation in the roof space, rooflights to front roof slope, new vehicular crossover to/from Oldfields Road, new pedestrian access to/from Willow Walk, provision of car parking spaces to the front, cycle parking to rear and flank, refuse storage area to the front, new boundary treatment and associated hard and soft landscaping.
Reference
DM2022/00004
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 2NB
Ward
Council
Received
4 Jan 2022
Validated
3 Mar 2022
Target date
1 Apr 2022
Decision date
7 Oct 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2022/00004
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 2NB
Ward
Council
Received
4 Jan 2022
Validated
3 Mar 2022
Target date
1 Apr 2022
Decision date
7 Oct 2022
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 7 Oct 2022, delegated decision by Ben Rochford — 39 weeks from submission (31 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
4 Jan 2022
Application received
3 Mar 2022
Application validated
1 Apr 2022
Statutory target date
7 Oct 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
4 Jan 2022
Application received
3 Mar 2022
Application validated
1 Apr 2022
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
7 Oct 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would fail to respond to the established street layout and the level of
intensification of this small site would not be a suitable size within the location, with unsympathetic
truncated rear gardens, appearing as an overdevelopment of the constricted plot and causing harm to the
character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle, contrary to
policies H1, H2 and D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies 1, 7, 9 and 10 of the Sutton local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of a constricted site and would fail
to respect the prevailing pattern of development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the
area, also being of poor design at roof level with an unsympathetic roof shape and box-like rear dormers.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD14 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places'.
3
The proposed development would fail to provide an adequate level of private outdoor amenity space
for both new dwellings, and a poor standard of amenity for the northern-most property given the provision
of an overly dominant off-street car parking space and the resultant unsympathetic 'L' shape garden, to the
detriment of future occupants and their livelihood. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D6 of the
London Plan 2021, policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD14 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places'.
1
The proposed development would fail to respond to the established street layout and the level of
intensification of this small site would not be a suitable size within the location, with unsympathetic
truncated rear gardens, appearing as an overdevelopment of the constricted plot and causing harm to the
character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore unacceptable in principle, contrary to
policies H1, H2 and D3 of the London Plan 2021 and policies 1, 7, 9 and 10 of the Sutton local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of a constricted site and would fail
to respect the prevailing pattern of development to the detriment of the character and appearance of the
area, also being of poor design at roof level with an unsympathetic roof shape and box-like rear dormers.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021, policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD14 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places'.
3
The proposed development would fail to provide an adequate level of private outdoor amenity space
for both new dwellings, and a poor standard of amenity for the northern-most property given the provision
of an overly dominant off-street car parking space and the resultant unsympathetic 'L' shape garden, to the
detriment of future occupants and their livelihood. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D6 of the
London Plan 2021, policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and SPD14 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places'.
Policies cited
H1H2D3Sutton local Plan 1Sutton local Plan 7Sutton local Plan 9Sutton local Plan 10D4Sutton Local Plan 28D6Sutton Local Plan 9
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
Objections
2
In support
0
Total comments
2
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.