Restaurant and six flats at 33-35 The Broadway, Cheam

What was proposed

The application proposed a restaurant at ground-floor level, six flats above, rear extensions, a dormer, rooflight and storage facilities.

“The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a part one, part two storey rear extension, a dormer extension to the rear roof slope, installation of rooflight to front roofslope, removal of chimneys and alterations to fenestrations to provide a restaurant (Class E) at ground floor and six self-contained residential units with provision of air conditioning unit, refuse and cycle storage to rear.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terrace building in a district centre and conservation area, beside residential properties and a rear access road.

“The application site relates nos. 33-35 The Broadway, Cheam. The site is located on the western side of The Broadway and is occupied by a two storey, mid terrace building with accommodation within the roof space and single storey projections to the rear. The building is currently separate units at ground and first floor with shared space at second floor level. There is commercial use on the ground floor of no.”

“To the north, east and south of the site there are a mixture of different commercial uses as the site is located within the Cheam Village District Centre. However directly to the west of the site there are two storey residential properties located within Parkside and further to the west, the public open space of Cheam Park.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors cited parking, construction, design, overbearing impact, overlooking, privacy, light, noise, waste and smells, while supporters cited housing, the economy and village vitality.

“Objection Letters Received Response Parking and Highway Safety The proposal will result in an increase in parking pressure. No off-street parking is proposed for the development. The site is located within a District Centre with good access to public transport. The applicant has submitted a parking survey in support of the application which demonstrates that there is capacity within the surrounding area to absorb any additional vehicles generated by the proposal.”

“Impact, that due to the proximity, bulk and massing of the development, it will appear overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property, Beltigne, Parkside located to the rear of the site. Overlooking and loss of privacy to properties and gardens to the rear of the site. Due to the proximity of the first floor rear facing windows, the proposal is considered to result in actual and perceived overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupants of Beltinge, Parkside.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector addressed the committee about harm to neighbours, the conservation area and deliveries, and the applicant replied about consultation, regeneration, design and living conditions.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the family-home setting, narrow rear access, deliveries and waste collection, and considered the development’s scale inappropriate for the conservation area.

“During the debate, members raised concern about the location which was characterised by family homes. It was noted that vehicular access to the rear of the property was narrow, meaning deliveries and waste collection would present significant ongoing issues. It was argued that scale of the development was inappropriate for the area and not in keeping with the Cheam Conservation Area.”

Minutes

The committee vote

All ten named councillors voted for the officers’ recommendation to refuse permission.

“DM2025/00983 - 33-35 THE BROADWAY, CHEAM, SM3 8BL (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to refuse permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted: Councillor Jayne McCoy For Councillor Richard Clifton For Councillor James Appleby For Councillor Rukhsar Askari For Councillor Sue Ebanks For Councillor Sunil Kumar For Councillor Cumar Sahathevan For Councillor Naveen Samrat For Councillor Alison Long For Councillor Trish…”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because the extension would be disproportionate, overbearing and harmful to privacy, and the flats did not meet the required housing mix.

“The proposed two storey rear extension, by reason of its height, bulk, massing, depth and proximity to the boundaries of the site would result in a disproportionate and incongruous addition that would lack subordination to the main building and would fail to respect the character of the prevailing form of development in the surrounding area, to the detriment of the appearance of the application site and character and setting of the surrounding Cheam Village Conservation…”

“The proposed development, by reason of proximity to the boundaries, bulk, massing and height, would result in a visually overbearing impact and loss of privacy to the occupants of Beltinge, Parkside contrary to Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018.”

Officer report