Development Intent
Planning AtlasSuttonThe WrytheApplication
Planning Application

DM2020/01129

13 Green Wrythe Lane Carshalton SM5 2DS

Full / Other PlanningThe Wrythe wardSmoke Control Orders: Smoke Control Zone
Submission
27 Jul 2020
Target
28 Sep 2020
Decision
12 Oct 2020
Outcome
Refused
Delegated decisionRefused
12 Oct 2020
Decided by Denuka Gunaratne under delegated powers
Loading map…
Scheme description

Change of use of ground floor from A3 (restaurant) to A1 (retail) and erection of a first floor rear extension to provide 2 self contained residential units with refuse area to rear following demolition of two single storey storage units.

Why it was refused
Reason 1

The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its design, scale, bulk and elevated siting would appear as a visually dominant and discordant addition that would fail to be subordinate to or respectful to the character of the site and would be an obtrusive feature when viewed from neighbouring gardens. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the advice in Supplementary Planning Document 4: The Design of Residential Extensions.

Reason 2

The proposed first floor rear extension by reason of its elevated position, height, depth and scale and proximity to the boundaries would result in harm to the amenity of residents at No's 1 and 3 St James Road by way of loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure. The proposed extensions would therefore be contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.

Reason 3

The proposed development would provide a cramped and unsatisfactory living conditions for the future occupiers of the proposed ground floor flat and first floor flat by reason of limited floor ceiling heights. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 3.5 of the London Plan 2016, Policy 9 of Sutton's Local Plan 2018, and The Mayor's Housing SPG 2016.

Reason 4

Without any evidence to demonstrate otherwise, the proposed development is unacceptable on highway grounds given that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the lack of off street car parking would be mitigated against to prevent any unacceptable increase in on street car parking resulting in harm to the transport and highway network. The application is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policies 36 and 37 of the Sutton's Local Plan and appendix 11 of the Sutton Local Plan.

Reason 5

Without evidence to the contrary, the application has failed to provide evidence that the proposal will provide a satisfactory reduction in carbon emissions, sustainable drainage measures and water efficiency measures. As such, the application would be contrary to Policies 5.2 and 5.13 of the London Plan 2016 and Policies 31, 32 and 33 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.

Policies cited
Sutton Local Plan 28
Sutton Local Plan 29
London Plan 3.5
Sutton's Local Plan 9
Sutton's Local Plan 36
Sutton's Local Plan 37
Sutton Local Plan 11
London Plan 5.2
London Plan 5.13
Sutton Local Plan 31
Sutton Local Plan 32
Sutton Local Plan 33
Parties
Applicant
Mr Peter Louka
Timeline
27 Jul 2020
Application submitted
17 Aug 2020
Application validated
12 Oct 2020
Delegated decision: Refused
Supporting documents · 14
OFFICER REPORT12 Oct 2020View ↗
DECISION NOTICE REFUSED FUL12 Oct 2020View ↗
MX POLLUTION CONTROL10 Sep 2020View ↗
MR PATRICK WHITTER7 Sep 2020View ↗
HISTORIC ENGLAND25 Aug 2020View ↗
A20/GRE/A04 B17 Aug 2020View ↗
A20/GRE/A01 B17 Aug 2020View ↗
DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT10 Aug 2020View ↗
A20/GRE/A02 A10 Aug 2020View ↗
A20/GRE/A03 A10 Aug 2020View ↗
SECTION 16 OF APPLICATION FORM10 Aug 2020View ↗
A20/GRE/A05 A10 Aug 2020View ↗
APPLICATION FORM (NO PERSONAL DATA)27 Jul 2020View ↗
SITE LOCATION PLAN27 Jul 2020View ↗
View Application Page ↗
Data from the Sutton planning register.
Summary
Reference
DM2020/01129
Type
Full Application
Applicant
Mr Peter Louka
Submitted
27 Jul 2020
Decision date
12 Oct 2020
Council
Decision
Refused
Decision route
Delegated (officer)
How long, really
11
wks · this application
Submission → decision · 3 wks over the 8-week target
Public response
Objections
9
In support
0
Total comments
9