Planning application · Sutton
DM2022/00597.
Oakwood Court Benhill Wood Road Sutton SM1 4HS
Other at Oakwood Court Benhill Wood Road Sutton SM1 4HS, received 24 Mar 2022 — refused on 19 May 2022 (delegated, Lauren Liu).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
19 May 2022
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
28
Documents
28 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?
Prior Approval in relation to a single storey roof extension to provide 2 new dwellings.
Reference
DM2022/00597
Type
PA Additional Stories to Flats
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 4HS
Ward
Council
Received
24 Mar 2022
Target date
22 Apr 2022
Decision date
19 May 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Prior Approval Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2022/00597
Type
PA Additional Stories to Flats
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM1 4HS
Ward
Council
Received
24 Mar 2022
Target date
22 Apr 2022
Decision date
19 May 2022
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Prior Approval Refused
Council register
Documents
What was filed?
Document
Published
View
Show all 10 rows
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 19 May 2022, delegated decision by Lauren Liu — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
24 Mar 2022
Application received
22 Apr 2022
Statutory target date
19 May 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Lauren Liu
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
24 Mar 2022
Application received
22 Apr 2022
Statutory target date
19 May 2022
Delegated decision: Refused · Lauren Liu
Show all 4 rows
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal by reason of its height would have a detrimental impact on the appearance and the
context of the street scene, contrary to condition A.2.(1)(e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015(as amended), policies D3
and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018).
2
The proposed development by reason of the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement to
secure the prohibition of the future occupiers from obtaining residents car parking permits at this location,
would result in overspill car parking to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the public highway
and would be contrary to condition A.2(1)(a) of schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) and policy 37 of the Sutton Local
Plan (2018).
1
The proposal by reason of its height would have a detrimental impact on the appearance and the
context of the street scene, contrary to condition A.2.(1)(e) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015(as amended), policies D3
and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018).
2
The proposed development by reason of the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement to
secure the prohibition of the future occupiers from obtaining residents car parking permits at this location,
would result in overspill car parking to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the public highway
and would be contrary to condition A.2(1)(a) of schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) and policy 37 of the Sutton Local
Plan (2018).
Policies cited
D3D4Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 37
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.