House extensions and loft conversion at 24 Court Drive, Carshalton

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, garage demolition and loft conversion with roof alterations.

“Planning History 3.5 Planning reference DM2024/00189: Lawful Development Certificate granted for “ Conversion of loft space involving alterations to existing roofline, a dormer extension at rear and rooflights to front roofslope.” Planning reference DM2024/00698: planning permission refused for “ Erection of a single storey rear extension and a part one, part two storey side extension.”

“Appendix B - DM2024/01670 24 Court Drive, Sutton SM1 3RG block, contrary to policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018 and 'Design of Residential Extensions' SPD4. Relevant Pre-application History 3.9 None. Design and Review Panel Feedback 3.10 N/A.”

Officer report

Officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and design, with no unacceptable effects on neighbours, parking, highways, trees, biodiversity or flooding.

“Summary of reasons for recommendation 2.2 The proposed residential extensions to the existing single family dwelling are acceptable in principle in land use terms as there is no change of use proposed. The design of the proposal is acceptable and would not cause harm to the character of the existing property or wider area.”

Officer report

Objections and responses

Ten objections raised concerns about design, parking, flooding, sewage and possible HMO use; officers addressed the material concerns and said HMO use was separate.

“Appendix B - DM2024/01670 24 Court Drive, Sutton SM1 3RG 5.3 A list of the objectors’ addresses can be found at Appendix C. Material objections raised: Material Issues of Objection Raised Response Design Extensions have already been refused at the site Planning reference DM2024/00698 was refused on design grounds as the extensions were excessive in size.”

“Appendix B - DM2024/01670 24 Court Drive, Sutton SM1 3RG regarding sewage, wastewater and drainage. The applicant is aware of this requirement. Non-material objections raised: Non-Material Issues of Objection Raised Response Site is to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) For the avoidance of doubt, the question of whether the property can be occupied as an HMO is not part of this application, and therefore cannot be taken into account.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A representative of the applicant said the design had been reduced, parking was adequate and separate permission would be needed for HMO use.

Committee discussion

Members noted that the design fitted the area, the rear extension was smaller than a neighbour’s, and the side extension was no more than half the property’s width.

“In debate, it was noted that the design was in keeping with the context of the local area, with particular attention drawn to the fact that the proposed rear extension was smaller than neighbouring property and that the proposed side extension was no more than half the width of existing property.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted on the recommendation, with eight members supporting it and one abstaining.

“DM2024/01670: COURT DRIVE, SUTTON SM1 3RG (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted: Councillor Jayne McCoy For Councillor Richard Clifton For Councillor Sam Cumber For Councillor Trish Fivey For Councillor Sam Martin For Councillor Patrick Ogbonna Abstain Councillor Patrick Magnus For Councillor Tony Shields For Councillor Tim Foster For Councillor Peter Geiringer…”

Minutes