Planning application · Sutton
DM2026/00405.
30 Richmond Road Beddington CR0 4SF
Householder at 30 Richmond Road Beddington CR0 4SF, received 27 Mar 2026 — refused on 1 Jun 2026 (delegated, Ivona Bryant).
ApprovedRefusedOther
At a glance · this applicationSutton profile →
Refused
Outcome
1 Jun 2026
9 wks
Decision time
1 wks over the 8-week target
—
Conditions
not captured
15
Documents
15 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 single storey rear extension, alterations to fenestration and conversion of loft space involving a dormer extension at rear and rooflights to front roofslope.
Reference
DM2026/00405
Type
Householder Application
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR0 4SF
Ward
Council
Received
27 Mar 2026
Target date
7 May 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 2026
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
Status
Application Refused
Council register
Reference
DM2026/00405
Type
Householder Application
Show all 15 rows
Applicant
Agent / consultant
Case officer
Postcode
CR0 4SF
Ward
Council
Received
27 Mar 2026
Target date
7 May 2026
Decision date
1 Jun 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 1 Jun 2026, delegated decision by Ivona Bryant — 9 weeks from submission (1 over the 8-week target).
Timeline
Date
Event
27 Mar 2026
Application received
7 May 2026
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ivona Bryant
27 Mar 2026
Application received
7 May 2026
Statutory target date
1 Jun 2026
Delegated decision: Refused · Ivona Bryant
Why it was refused
Reason
As stated on the decision notice
1
The proposal, and the rear dormer extension in particular, by reason of its orientation, design, size,
width and the choice of flat roof profile, would form an incongruous addition to the dwelling that
would appear box-like and top-heavy on the rear elevation that would be readily visible from
Richmond Road, Kingston Gardens and Windsor Gardens streetscene and would adversely impact
on the established character and appearance of the main building, the wider streetscene within
'Beddington Village' Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 28 and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan
2018 and the guidance in Supplementary Planning Document 'Design of Residential Extensions'
(SPD4), Sutton's Urban Design Guide 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places' SPD (SPD14) and the
'Beddington Village' Conservation Area - Character Appraisal (2018).
2
Given the design and the insufficient internal floor to ceiling height of the proposed en-suite
bedroom within the loft space, the proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable
standard of accommodation for the current and future occupiers, contrary to Policy D6 and GG3 of
the London Plan 2021 and Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
1
The proposal, and the rear dormer extension in particular, by reason of its orientation, design, size,
width and the choice of flat roof profile, would form an incongruous addition to the dwelling that
would appear box-like and top-heavy on the rear elevation that would be readily visible from
Richmond Road, Kingston Gardens and Windsor Gardens streetscene and would adversely impact
on the established character and appearance of the main building, the wider streetscene within
'Beddington Village' Conservation Area, contrary to Policies 28 and 30 of the Sutton Local Plan
2018 and the guidance in Supplementary Planning Document 'Design of Residential Extensions'
(SPD4), Sutton's Urban Design Guide 'Creating Locally Distinctive Places' SPD (SPD14) and the
'Beddington Village' Conservation Area - Character Appraisal (2018).
2
Given the design and the insufficient internal floor to ceiling height of the proposed en-suite
bedroom within the loft space, the proposed development would fail to provide an acceptable
standard of accommodation for the current and future occupiers, contrary to Policy D6 and GG3 of
the London Plan 2021 and Policy 9 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.
Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28Sutton Local Plan 30D6GG3Sutton Local Plan 9
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.