Planning application · Sutton
DM2023/01805.
93 Carshalton Park Road Carshalton SM5 3SJ
Householder at 93 Carshalton Park Road Carshalton SM5 3SJ, received 1 Dec 2023 — refused on 16 Jan 2024 (delegated, John Grierson).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
16 Jan 2024
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
14
Documents
14 linked
0
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?
Erection of a single storey side and rear extension and alterations to ground floor fenestration and rooflights.
Reference
DM2023/01805
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
1 Dec 2023
Target date
28 Dec 2023
Decision date
16 Jan 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
DM2023/01805
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Council
Received
1 Dec 2023
Target date
28 Dec 2023
Decision date
16 Jan 2024
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 16 Jan 2024, delegated decision by John Grierson — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
1 Dec 2023
Application received
28 Dec 2023
Statutory target date
16 Jan 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · John Grierson
1 Dec 2023
Application received
28 Dec 2023
Statutory target date
16 Jan 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · John Grierson
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed rear extension, by reason of its two tier flat roof design, and excessive depth, width
and massing, would fail to relate sympathetically to the host dwelling, appearing unduly dominant, resulting
in an excessively bulky, incongruous and contrived appearance that would cause unacceptable harm to the
character and appearance of the application
property, contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the guidance in SPD4.
2
The proposed extension, by reason of its excessive depth and height in close proximity to the
boundaries, would result in an unacceptable impact on outlook and undue sense of enclosure to numbers
91 and 95 Carshalton Park Road, contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the guidance in
SPD4.
1
The proposed rear extension, by reason of its two tier flat roof design, and excessive depth, width
and massing, would fail to relate sympathetically to the host dwelling, appearing unduly dominant, resulting
in an excessively bulky, incongruous and contrived appearance that would cause unacceptable harm to the
character and appearance of the application
property, contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the guidance in SPD4.
2
The proposed extension, by reason of its excessive depth and height in close proximity to the
boundaries, would result in an unacceptable impact on outlook and undue sense of enclosure to numbers
91 and 95 Carshalton Park Road, contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the guidance in
SPD4.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 29
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.