Planning application · Sutton
DM2024/00208.
Householder at 5 Dibdin Road Sutton SM1 2PH, received 14 Feb 2024 — refused on 3 Apr 2024 (delegated, Emmanuel Agyei).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
3 Apr 2024
7 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
17
Documents
17 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 rear extension.
Reference
DM2024/00208
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
14 Feb 2024
Target date
25 Mar 2024
Decision date
3 Apr 2024
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Premises record
Council register
Reference
DM2024/00208
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
Ward
Council
Received
14 Feb 2024
Target date
25 Mar 2024
Decision date
3 Apr 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 3 Apr 2024, delegated decision by Emmanuel Agyei — 7 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
14 Feb 2024
Application received
25 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
3 Apr 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
14 Feb 2024
Application received
25 Mar 2024
Statutory target date
3 Apr 2024
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed extension by reason of its excessive cumulative depth, would result in a dwelling with
a disproportionate addition which would be unduly prominent within the context to the detriment of
the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 28 of
the Sutton Local Plan and SPD4 'Design of Residential Extensions'.
1
The proposed extension by reason of its excessive cumulative depth, would result in a dwelling with
a disproportionate addition which would be unduly prominent within the context to the detriment of
the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal
would therefore be contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 28 of
the Sutton Local Plan and SPD4 'Design of Residential Extensions'.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28NPPF
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.