Planning application · Sutton
DM2026/00282.
27 Waltham Road Carshalton SM5 1PL
Householder at 27 Waltham Road Carshalton SM5 1PL, received 5 Mar 2026 — refused on 27 Apr 2026 (delegated, Ben Rochford).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
27 Apr 2026
8 wks
Decision time
inside the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
11
Documents
11 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. Formation of a front entrance porch.
Reference
DM2026/00282
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 1PL
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
9 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 Apr 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2026/00282
Type
Householder Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 1PL
Ward
Council
Received
5 Mar 2026
Target date
9 Apr 2026
Decision date
27 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 27 Apr 2026, delegated decision by Ben Rochford — 8 weeks from submission.
Timeline
Date
Event
5 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
5 Mar 2026
Application received
9 Apr 2026
Statutory target date
27 Apr 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed extensions, by reason of their excessive width, lack of subordination and poor
cohesive design, would result in a bulky and visually intrusive addition. The proposal would
eradicate the characteristic openness of the corner plot and disrupt the established rhythm of the St
Helier Estate, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and
the wider streetscene. This is contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan and the guidance set
out in 'Design of Residential Extensions' SPD4.
2
The proposed side extension, due to its height and proximity to the boundary, would appear
overbearing when viewed from 107 Wigmore Road, leading to an unacceptable sense of enclosure
and loss of outlook for the neighboring occupants. This is contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local
Plan and 'Design of Residential Extensions' SPD4.
3
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proximity of the extension to the shared boundary is
considered likely to result in significant damage to the root system of a mature tree of amenity value.
The proposal fails to demonstrate that this tree can be safely retained, contrary to Policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan.
1
The proposed extensions, by reason of their excessive width, lack of subordination and poor
cohesive design, would result in a bulky and visually intrusive addition. The proposal would
eradicate the characteristic openness of the corner plot and disrupt the established rhythm of the St
Helier Estate, causing significant harm to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and
the wider streetscene. This is contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan and the guidance set
out in 'Design of Residential Extensions' SPD4.
2
The proposed side extension, due to its height and proximity to the boundary, would appear
overbearing when viewed from 107 Wigmore Road, leading to an unacceptable sense of enclosure
and loss of outlook for the neighboring occupants. This is contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local
Plan and 'Design of Residential Extensions' SPD4.
3
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proximity of the extension to the shared boundary is
considered likely to result in significant damage to the root system of a mature tree of amenity value.
The proposal fails to demonstrate that this tree can be safely retained, contrary to Policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan.
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.