Planning application to fall flat again?

About this time back in 2008 I blogged that a certain Mr Hull wanted to turn 34-36 Brinkley Road into 10 flats but he failed.

"A developer has twice proposed knocking down two bungalows in Brinkley Road and replacing them with flats in a fashion not entirely dissimilar to the new Brinkley Court, which replaced the disused church/factory for those of you who ever saw it. Having been turned down by Sutton Council for first 18 and then 14 flats they've returned to the fray with a proposal for 10 flats"

Undaunted he tried again in 2009 and 2010 but after a year off he's back with an application for 9 flats which is uncannily similar to his last application. For the record here are the reasons the 2008 application were rejected so if you believe that any of those, or objections to the later developments, still apply then make your objection to developmentcontrol@sutton.gov.uk


(1). The proposed development of this site to provide ten (10) flats would result in a building of excessive bulk, scale, width and height that would fail to satisfactorily relate to surrounding properties and would have an adverse impact on the street scene. The application is therefore contrary to Policies G/BE1, BE1 and HSG1 of the Sutton Unitary Development Plan, London Plan Policies 4B.1 and 4B.8 and the advice contained within PPS1 and PPS3.

(2).The proposed development would result in demonstrable harm and have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers in Brinkley Road in terms of their outlook and privacy by reason of the close proximity, indicative bulk and massing and placement of habitable windows facing the rear gardens of properties in Brinkley Road. The application is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE18 and HSG1 of the Sutton Unitary Development Plan.

(3). The proposal makes no provision for affordable housing and is therefore contrary to the requirements of London Plan policies 3A.9 and 3A.11.

(4). The proposal does not make any provision towards planning obligations and is therefore contrary to UDP Policy IMP1 and SPD5 'Planning Obligations.'

(5). The total number of car parking spaces to be provided on site does not accord with the Council’s minimum requirements. UDP Policy TR12 prescribes that a maximum of 13 spaces should be developed onsite for the proposed scheme (being 1 space plus 30% per dwelling). The failure to provide sufficient number of spaces will result in an increase in parking pressure or congestion for the surrounding road network contrary to the Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policies G/TR5 and TR12, TR13 and TR18.

 (6). The application does not make any provision for inclusive access and is therefore contrary to London Plan policy 3A.5 that prescribes that ten per cent of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users. (7) The location of the refuse storage area in terms of its distance from the public highway, which exceeds 15.0m which cannot be accessed by a refuse collection vehicle due to the restricted size of the under-croft access that does not accord with and is contrary to the Council’s requirements - SPD14 ' Creating Locally Distinctive Places.'