Planning application · Sutton
DM2026/00193.
85 Camborne Road Sutton SM2 6RF
Householder at 85 Camborne Road Sutton SM2 6RF, received 17 Feb 2026 — refused on 14 Apr 2026 (delegated, Emmanuel Agyei).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
14 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
20
Documents
20 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 part one, part two storey side extension. Provision of solar panels to the roof and an air source heat pump.
Reference
DM2026/00193
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM2 6RF
Ward
Council
Received
17 Feb 2026
Validated
19 Feb 2026
Target date
8 Apr 2026
Decision date
14 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2026/00193
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM2 6RF
Ward
Council
Received
17 Feb 2026
Validated
19 Feb 2026
Target date
8 Apr 2026
Decision date
14 Apr 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 14 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Emmanuel Agyei — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
17 Feb 2026
Application received
19 Feb 2026
Application validated
8 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
14 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
17 Feb 2026
Application received
19 Feb 2026
Application validated
8 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
14 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Emmanuel Agyei
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
By reason of its design, scale and massing, the proposed development would appear unduly
excessive and would fail to relate sympathetically or subordinately to the dwelling, appearing overly
dominant and adversely altering the character and appearance of the application site and the
surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and Supplementary Planning Document 4 - 'Design of Residential
Extensions'.
2
Without evidence to the contrary the application has failed to provide evidence that the proposal will
provide a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions, avoid flood risk within the site and the
surrounding area and provide adequate site drainage measures. As such, the application would be
contrary to Policy SI 13 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies 31 and 32 of the Sutton Local Plan
2018.
1
By reason of its design, scale and massing, the proposed development would appear unduly
excessive and would fail to relate sympathetically or subordinately to the dwelling, appearing overly
dominant and adversely altering the character and appearance of the application site and the
surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and Supplementary Planning Document 4 - 'Design of Residential
Extensions'.
2
Without evidence to the contrary the application has failed to provide evidence that the proposal will
provide a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions, avoid flood risk within the site and the
surrounding area and provide adequate site drainage measures. As such, the application would be
contrary to Policy SI 13 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies 31 and 32 of the Sutton Local Plan
2018.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28SI13Sutton Local Plan 31Sutton Local Plan 32
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.