Planning application · Sutton
DM2026/00280.
126 The Chase Wallington SM6 8JS
Householder at 126 The Chase Wallington SM6 8JS, received 5 Mar 2026 — refused on 30 Apr 2026 (delegated, Ivona Bryant).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
30 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
10
Documents
10 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 an outbuilding to provide annexed accommodation.
Reference
DM2026/00280
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 8JS
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
20 Apr 2026
Decision date
30 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2026/00280
Type
Householder Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM6 8JS
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
20 Apr 2026
Decision date
30 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 30 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Ivona Bryant — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Mar 2026
Application received
20 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ivona Bryant
5 Mar 2026
Application received
20 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
30 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ivona Bryant
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed development would result in a non-ancillary accommodation as it would include all the
day to day facilities within a large outbuilding which would benefit from an independent access via
the residential pathway to the north of the site. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the
proposed annexe would retain a strong functional link with the main dwellinghouse and would
therefore constitute as a separate self-contained residential unit and would be contrary to Policy 7,
9, 13 and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development, by reason of excessive scale, massing and footprint, would appear
incongruous within the garden setting and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development. As a
result, the annexe would fail to appear subordinate or relate well to the main dwelling, appearing
overly dominant and being visually intrusive within the rear streetscene. As such, the proposal is
contrary to Policy 28 of Sutton Local Plan 2018.
1
The proposed development would result in a non-ancillary accommodation as it would include all the
day to day facilities within a large outbuilding which would benefit from an independent access via
the residential pathway to the north of the site. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the
proposed annexe would retain a strong functional link with the main dwellinghouse and would
therefore constitute as a separate self-contained residential unit and would be contrary to Policy 7,
9, 13 and 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
2
The proposed development, by reason of excessive scale, massing and footprint, would appear
incongruous within the garden setting and at odds with the prevailing pattern of development. As a
result, the annexe would fail to appear subordinate or relate well to the main dwelling, appearing
overly dominant and being visually intrusive within the rear streetscene. As such, the proposal is
contrary to Policy 28 of Sutton Local Plan 2018.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 7Sutton Local Plan 9Sutton Local Plan 13Sutton Local Plan 28
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.