Single-storey rear extension at 15 Surrey Grove, Carshalton

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey rear extension and changes to ground-floor front and first-floor flank windows.

“Erection of a single storey rear extension, alterations to ground floor front and first floor flank fenestrations.”

Officer report

Planning history

A previous HMO and rear-extension application was refused and dismissed on appeal, with the refusal relating to the HMO rather than the extension.

“In response to a question, officers advised that most of the nearby properties have previously been extended with dormers and one and two storey extensions of varying designs and sizes. Officers clarified that this application was for a 3 metre deep single storey rear extension, which falls outside of permitted development rights.”

“In response to a question, officers clarified that a previous application to change use from Class C3 (Residential) to Class C4 (Small HMO) and a single storey rear extension was refused in December 2025, and upheld on appeal. Officers noted that although this application was refused, it was based on reasons related to the HMO rather than the extension itself.”

Minutes

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the extension modest and in keeping, with no undue harm to neighbours, highways, parking, trees, biodiversity or flooding.

“The principle of extending a single family dwelling house is acceptable as the extension is modest in size and would be in-keeping with the character of the dwelling, the street scene and surrounding area.”

“The proposed development would not impact on trees, biodiversity or increase the risk of flooding at the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about the HMO history, internal layout, toilets, enforcement and a possible basement; the applicant said the property would remain single-family.

Committee discussion

Members noted that there were no objections about overlooking, while officers explained the site visit, conventional layout and approach to potential breaches.

“Officers confirmed that they had visited the site on 7 July 2026, and that the property was laid out in a conventional manner. In response to a further question, officers explained that they are unable to proactively monitor every site granted planning permission due to resource constraints. Consequently, the Enforcement Team relies on local residents to report potential breaches, at which point enforcement officers will investigate.”

“In debate, committee members discussed the proposal and noted that there were no objections relating to overlooking.”

Minutes

The committee vote

All listed councillors voted for the officers’ recommendation in a poll vote.

“APPLICATION NO. DM2025/01315 - 15 Surrey Grove, Sutton SM1 3PW (Committee Report) A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted.”

“Planning Committee 5 August 2026 17 Councillor Jayne McCoy For Councillor Chandra Alapati For Councillor James Appleby For Councillor Rukhsar Askari For Councillor Sunil Kumar For Councillor Cumar Sahathevan For Councillor Naveen Samrat For Councillor Alison Long For Councillor Trish Fivey For Councillor Jake Short For Agreed…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B.

“RESOLVED: To GRANT planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix B.”

Minutes