Planning application · Sutton
DM2026/00363.
35 Park Hill Carshalton SM5 3SD
Householder at 35 Park Hill Carshalton SM5 3SD, received 20 Mar 2026 — refused on 21 May 2026 (delegated, Ben Rochford).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
21 May 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
8
Documents
8 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 outbuilding.
Reference
DM2026/00363
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 3SD
Council
Received
20 Mar 2026
Validated
30 Mar 2026
Target date
5 May 2026
Decision date
21 May 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2026/00363
Type
Householder Application
Show all 16 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
SM5 3SD
Council
Received
20 Mar 2026
Validated
30 Mar 2026
Target date
5 May 2026
Decision date
21 May 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 21 May 2026, delegated decision by Ben Rochford — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
20 Mar 2026
Application received
30 Mar 2026
Application validated
5 May 2026
Statutory target date
21 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
20 Mar 2026
Application received
30 Mar 2026
Application validated
5 May 2026
Statutory target date
Show all 4 rows
21 May 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ben Rochford
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its excessive scale, massing, and height (4m), would result in
a visually dominant and intrusive addition that fails to respect the local context. This visual impact is
further exacerbated by the choice of black, monotone corrugated metal cladding, which creates a
stark and discordant aesthetic that fails to integrate with the existing rear garden setting or maintain
the subservience expected of an ancillary domestic building. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan.
2
The proposed development would result in significant harm to the green infrastructure of the site
and surrounding area. Several large, mature trees are located within close proximity to the proposed
footprint, and the outbuilding would result in direct encroachment upon the Root Protection Areas
(RPAs) and canopy spreads of these specimens. In the absence of a professional Arboricultural
Impact Assessment or Tree Protection Plan, it has not been demonstrated that the development can
be achieved without adversely impacting the long-term health, structural integrity, and safe retention
of these trees. The loss or decline of this vegetation would diminish the verdant character of the
locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan.
1
The proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its excessive scale, massing, and height (4m), would result in
a visually dominant and intrusive addition that fails to respect the local context. This visual impact is
further exacerbated by the choice of black, monotone corrugated metal cladding, which creates a
stark and discordant aesthetic that fails to integrate with the existing rear garden setting or maintain
the subservience expected of an ancillary domestic building. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan.
2
The proposed development would result in significant harm to the green infrastructure of the site
and surrounding area. Several large, mature trees are located within close proximity to the proposed
footprint, and the outbuilding would result in direct encroachment upon the Root Protection Areas
(RPAs) and canopy spreads of these specimens. In the absence of a professional Arboricultural
Impact Assessment or Tree Protection Plan, it has not been demonstrated that the development can
be achieved without adversely impacting the long-term health, structural integrity, and safe retention
of these trees. The loss or decline of this vegetation would diminish the verdant character of the
locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan.
Policies cited
Sutton 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.