Mixed-use building at 27 - 29 High Street, Carshalton

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing single-storey building and constructing a three-storey building with commercial units, nine homes and associated facilities.

“The application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single storey building and erection of a detached three storey building comprising two commercial units (class E) at ground floor and nine self contained residential units (class C3) to upper floors with balconies to rear/side first and second floor elevations, separate and communal amenity spaces, car parking spaces, cycle and refuse stores and associated hard and soft landscaping.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was a former pharmacy in a conservation area and district-centre shopping frontage, with residential, commercial and open-space uses nearby.

“The application site is located in a prominent location within the Carshalton Village Conservation Area and is within the Primary Shopping Frontage of Carshalton District Centre.”

“Archaeological Priority Area; ● Area of Potential Intensification (API); ● Carshalton Village Conservation Area; ● Carshalton District Centres; ● Highways Improvement Corridor; ● Primary Shopping Frontage; ● Within 100 metres a Site for Importance of Nature Conservation (SINC).”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

An earlier scheme was refused on nine grounds, but the appeal identified the rear building’s conservation-area impact as the remaining issue.

“The only remaining issue was the impact of the building's design on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which the Inspector considered would cause “less than substantial harm” that was not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.”

“In my opinion, these 4 ‘units’ at the back of the scheme would offer no sense of subservience to the front part, as tends to be common with rear elements around. Instead, collectively they would form a large block of development that would relate poorly to its context due to its height (both in absolute terms and relative to the frontage element) and its scale.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the reduced rear element subservient, the mixed use acceptable, and impacts on neighbours, future residents, highways, trees and the environment manageable.

“The application site is located within an Area of Potential Intensification and a District Centre and therefore the principle of a mixed use residential development with commercial units at the ground floor is considered to be acceptable and is supported by the relevant Local Plan and London Plan Policies.”

“The rear element of the building has been reduced in scale and now appears subservient to the front part, overcoming the previous refusal reason for the redevelopment of the site that was refused by the council and subsequently dismissed at appeal Report Page 23”

Officer report

Objection and consultations

One objection raised concerns about conservation-area harm, privacy, light, trees and deliveries, while consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Material Issues of Objection Raised Response Harm to the significance of the conservation area The rear element of the building has been reduced in scale and now appears subservient to the front part, overcoming the previous refusal reason for the redevelopment of the site that was refused by the council and subsequently dismissed at appeal (APP/P5870/W/24/3352826).”

“Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) No objection subject to a condition to secure a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI). Waste Management No objection subject to a condition to secure refuse store details.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the committee and said the revised design improved subservience, supported sustainable development and fitted the conservation area.

The vote

The committee held a poll vote on the officer recommendation, and all listed councillors voted for it.

“A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions attached at Appendix B, was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:”

“DM2025/00966 27-29 HIGH STREET, CARSHALTON, SM5 3AX (Committee Report) Councillor Jayne McCoy For Councillor Richard Clifton For Councillor Sam Cumber For Councillor Sam Martin For Councillor Patrick Ogbonna For Councillor Eric Allen For Councillor Patrick Magnus For Councillor Tony Shields For Councillor Tim Foster For Councillor Gemma Munday For Agreed…”

Minutes