Planning application · Sutton
DM2023/01097.
27 - 29 High Street Carshalton SM5 3AX
Full / Other Planning at 27 - 29 High Street Carshalton SM5 3AX, received 7 Jul 2023 — refused on 4 Apr 2024 by committee.
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
4 Apr 2024
39 wks
Decision time
31 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
46
Documents
46 linked
15
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 existing single storey building and erection of a three storey building to provide two commercial units (Class E) at ground floor and 9 self contained residential units (Class C3) at first and second floor with associated amenity areas, provision of off-street car parking at rear, refuse and cycle storage and landscaping.
Reference
DM2023/01097
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 3AX
Council
Received
7 Jul 2023
Validated
30 Oct 2023
Target date
30 Nov 2023
Decision date
4 Apr 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2023/01097
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 3AX
Council
Received
7 Jul 2023
Validated
30 Oct 2023
Target date
30 Nov 2023
Decision date
4 Apr 2024
Decision route
Planning committee
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 4 Apr 2024, determined by the planning committee — 39 weeks from submission (31 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
7 Jul 2023
Application received
30 Oct 2023
Application validated
30 Nov 2023
Statutory target date
4 Apr 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
7 Jul 2023
Application received
30 Oct 2023
Application validated
30 Nov 2023
Statutory target date
Show all 5 rows
4 Apr 2024
Committee decision: Refused
Appeal
Appeal Dismissed · Appeal Dismissed
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal would fail to provide a minimum of 50% of all dwellings on the site as having three
bedrooms or more and there are no obvious restrictions that would make the site unsuitable for a
housing mix which would meet this policy requirement. Thus, the proposed development would be
contrary to the requirements of Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan and is therefore unacceptable in
principle.
2
The proposal development, by reason of its unsympathetic and incongruous design, excessive
height, bulk, massing and materials, would fail to preserve and enhance the Carshalton Village
Conservation Area and would cause substantial harm to its character, contrary to Section 16 of the
NPPF 2023, Policies D1, D3, D4, D8, and HC1 of the London Plan, Policies 28 and 30 of the Local
Plan 2018, Sutton's Urban Design Guide SPD 14 and the Carshalton Village Conservation Area
Appraisal 2019.
3
The proposal would result in an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbour amenity to the
occupants of The Forge, 1-4 The Green and 9 Beacon Grove, by way of loss of outlook, light,
privacy and an undue sense of enclosure, and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to
Policy 29 of the Local Plan.
4
The proposal would fail to deliver an acceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupiers
by way of failing to provide an appropriate outlook and dual aspect and adequate private amenity
space to a number of the proposed dwellings, contrary to Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and
Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and the guidance Urban Design Guide SPD14.
5
The inadequate width of the proposed access road means that the proposal would result in an
unacceptably adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the public highway and therefore
would be contrary to Policy 36 of the Sutton Local Plan.
6
The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of trees of value within the
Carshalton Village Conservation Area, and would fail to provide high quality landscaping by design,
contrary to Policies 28 and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan.
7
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development would result in a net loss of
biodiversity on site contrary to Policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan.
8
The application has failed to demonstrate that it would provide necessary reductions in CO2
emissions by way of renewable energy and would achieve appropriate water efficiency, contrary to
Policies 31 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan.
9
The proposed development is considered unacceptable in terms of the lack of a completed S106
agreement, contrary to Policies T4, T6 and DF1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies 36 and 37 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and Sutton's Supplementary Planning Document 5 Planning Obligations.
1
The proposal would fail to provide a minimum of 50% of all dwellings on the site as having three
bedrooms or more and there are no obvious restrictions that would make the site unsuitable for a
housing mix which would meet this policy requirement. Thus, the proposed development would be
contrary to the requirements of Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan and is therefore unacceptable in
principle.
2
The proposal development, by reason of its unsympathetic and incongruous design, excessive
height, bulk, massing and materials, would fail to preserve and enhance the Carshalton Village
Conservation Area and would cause substantial harm to its character, contrary to Section 16 of the
NPPF 2023, Policies D1, D3, D4, D8, and HC1 of the London Plan, Policies 28 and 30 of the Local
Plan 2018, Sutton's Urban Design Guide SPD 14 and the Carshalton Village Conservation Area
Appraisal 2019.
3
The proposal would result in an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbour amenity to the
occupants of The Forge, 1-4 The Green and 9 Beacon Grove, by way of loss of outlook, light,
privacy and an undue sense of enclosure, and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to
Policy 29 of the Local Plan.
Show all 9 rows
4
The proposal would fail to deliver an acceptable standard of accommodation for the future occupiers
by way of failing to provide an appropriate outlook and dual aspect and adequate private amenity
space to a number of the proposed dwellings, contrary to Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and
Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 and the guidance Urban Design Guide SPD14.
5
The inadequate width of the proposed access road means that the proposal would result in an
unacceptably adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the public highway and therefore
would be contrary to Policy 36 of the Sutton Local Plan.
6
The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of trees of value within the
Carshalton Village Conservation Area, and would fail to provide high quality landscaping by design,
contrary to Policies 28 and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan.
7
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposed development would result in a net loss of
biodiversity on site contrary to Policy 26 of the Sutton Local Plan.
8
The application has failed to demonstrate that it would provide necessary reductions in CO2
emissions by way of renewable energy and would achieve appropriate water efficiency, contrary to
Policies 31 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan.
9
The proposed development is considered unacceptable in terms of the lack of a completed S106
agreement, contrary to Policies T4, T6 and DF1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies 36 and 37 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and Sutton's Supplementary Planning Document 5 Planning Obligations.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 9HC1Local Plan 28Local Plan 30NPPFLocal Plan 29D6Sutton Local Plan 36Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 30Sutton Local Plan 26Sutton Local Plan 31Sutton Local Plan 33T4T6DF1Sutton Local Plan 37
Appeal
Appeal
Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Appeal Dismissed
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
15
In support
0
Total comments
16
Objections
15
In support
0
Total comments
16
People
Who is involved?
Name
Role
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Determined at committee
Applicant — the party who applied, not necessarily the owner
Agent · consultant profile
Case officer (report to committee)
Show all 4 rows
Determined at committee
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.