Planning application · Sutton
DM2025/00729.
53 - 55 Stafford Road Wallington SM6 9AP
Full / Other Planning at 53 - 55 Stafford Road Wallington SM6 9AP, received 29 May 2025 — refused on 5 Mar 2026 (delegated, Ben Rochford).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
5 Mar 2026
40 wks
Decision time
32 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
31
Documents
31 linked
11
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?
Partial change of use of ground floor from Sui Generis (commercial) to Class C3 (residential) including the erection a part one, part two storey rear extension to provide two self contained residential units, change of use of first floor from Class C3 (residential) to Sui Generis (Larger HMO - 9 rooms) and conversion of loft space involving the provision of a mansard roof, installation of rooflights to the flat roof, dormer windows to front, flank and rear roofslopes installation of a roof lantern to the ground floor rear extension roof, alterations to the front, flank and rear fenestrations and provision of parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage to rear together with new rear boundary tre
Reference
DM2025/00729
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 9AP
Ward
Council
Received
29 May 2025
Validated
16 Jan 2026
Target date
19 Feb 2026
Decision date
5 Mar 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2025/00729
Type
Full Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 9AP
Ward
Council
Received
29 May 2025
Validated
16 Jan 2026
Target date
19 Feb 2026
Decision date
5 Mar 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
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 5 Mar 2026, delegated decision by Ben Rochford — 40 weeks from submission (32 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
29 May 2025
Application received
16 Jan 2026
Application validated
19 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
5 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
29 May 2025
Application received
16 Jan 2026
Application validated
19 Feb 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
5 Mar 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, massing, and disjointed architectural
form, constitutes an overdevelopment of the site that fails to respect the local context. The proposed
second floor extension and the two storey rear extensions significantly increase the built volume up
to the side and rear boundaries, creating a top-heavy and congested appearance. This massing fails
to provide a necessary visual stepping down of the built form toward the residential character of
Charlotte Road, resulting in a visually intrusive addition that dominates the open corner plot.
Furthermore, the design lacks cohesion and fails to integrate with the existing building's architectural
detailing. Consequently, the proposal represents a piecemeal extension that causes demonstrable
harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and is contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton
Local Plan (2018) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021).
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would provide an acceptable standard
of accommodation for future occupants. Despite the site being located in a high noise impact
corridor, no Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been provided to ensure indoor noise requirements
are met and the reliance on passive ventilation is considered inappropriate given the external noise
and air pollution. Furthermore, the lack of evidence regarding Air Quality Neutral standards for
heating systems means the proposal fails to comply with Policies 9 and 34 of the Sutton Local Plan
and Policies D6 and D14 of the London Plan.
3
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety or local
parking capacity. The applicant has failed to provide an on-street parking survey (Lambeth
Methodology) to prove the surrounding network can absorb increased demand, or a Swept Path
Analysis to demonstrate that vehicles can safely manoeuvre within the site and exit in a forward
gear. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan and Chapter
10 of the London Plan.
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate a commitment to mitigating climate change and is contrary to
Policies 31, 32, and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018) and Policies SI 2 and SI 13 of the London
Plan (2021).
1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive scale, massing, and disjointed architectural
form, constitutes an overdevelopment of the site that fails to respect the local context. The proposed
second floor extension and the two storey rear extensions significantly increase the built volume up
to the side and rear boundaries, creating a top-heavy and congested appearance. This massing fails
to provide a necessary visual stepping down of the built form toward the residential character of
Charlotte Road, resulting in a visually intrusive addition that dominates the open corner plot.
Furthermore, the design lacks cohesion and fails to integrate with the existing building's architectural
detailing. Consequently, the proposal represents a piecemeal extension that causes demonstrable
harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and is contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton
Local Plan (2018) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021).
2
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would provide an acceptable standard
of accommodation for future occupants. Despite the site being located in a high noise impact
corridor, no Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been provided to ensure indoor noise requirements
are met and the reliance on passive ventilation is considered inappropriate given the external noise
and air pollution. Furthermore, the lack of evidence regarding Air Quality Neutral standards for
heating systems means the proposal fails to comply with Policies 9 and 34 of the Sutton Local Plan
and Policies D6 and D14 of the London Plan.
3
It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety or local
parking capacity. The applicant has failed to provide an on-street parking survey (Lambeth
Methodology) to prove the surrounding network can absorb increased demand, or a Swept Path
Analysis to demonstrate that vehicles can safely manoeuvre within the site and exit in a forward
gear. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton Local Plan and Chapter
10 of the London Plan.
Show all 4 rows
4
The proposal fails to demonstrate a commitment to mitigating climate change and is contrary to
Policies 31, 32, and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan (2018) and Policies SI 2 and SI 13 of the London
Plan (2021).
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28D3Sutton Local Plan 9Sutton Local Plan 34D6D14Sutton Local Plan 36Sutton Local Plan 37London Plan 10Sutton Local Plan 33SI2SI13
Public response
Measure
Count
Objections
11
In support
0
Total comments
11
Objections
11
In support
0
Total comments
11
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.