Planning application · Sutton
DM2022/00065.
76 St Philips Avenue Worcester Park KT4 8LA
Householder at 76 St Philips Avenue Worcester Park KT4 8LA, received 13 Jan 2022 — refused on 26 Apr 2022 (delegated, Alexandra Lee).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
26 Apr 2022
15 wks
Decision time
7 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
12
Documents
12 linked
0
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?
Erection of a first floor rear extension and conversion of loftspace involving alterations to existing roofline and a dormer to rear with rooflights to front roofslope.
Reference
DM2022/00065
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
13 Jan 2022
Target date
17 Feb 2022
Decision date
26 Apr 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
DM2022/00065
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
13 Jan 2022
Target date
17 Feb 2022
Decision date
26 Apr 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 26 Apr 2022, delegated decision by Alexandra Lee — 15 weeks from submission (7 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
13 Jan 2022
Application received
17 Feb 2022
Statutory target date
26 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Alexandra Lee
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
13 Jan 2022
Application received
17 Feb 2022
Statutory target date
26 Apr 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Alexandra Lee
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By virtue of its design and form particularly the proposed increased in roof height, first floor rear
extension and the height and width of the proposed rear dormer, the proposed development would appear
overdominant, incongruous and disproportionate to the main dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties.
The proposal therefore would be harmful to the site and it its contribution to the character and appearance
of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan, Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018
and SPD 4 'Design of Residential Extensions'.
2
The proposal, due to insufficient information to demonstrate the proposal would protect and
enhance biodiversity or a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA), the application is therefore contrary to
policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018).
1
By virtue of its design and form particularly the proposed increased in roof height, first floor rear
extension and the height and width of the proposed rear dormer, the proposed development would appear
overdominant, incongruous and disproportionate to the main dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties.
The proposal therefore would be harmful to the site and it its contribution to the character and appearance
of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan, Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018
and SPD 4 'Design of Residential Extensions'.
2
The proposal, due to insufficient information to demonstrate the proposal would protect and
enhance biodiversity or a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA), the application is therefore contrary to
policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018).
Policies cited
D4Sutton Local Plan 28G6Sutton Local Plan 26
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
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.