Plans to demolish a garage and porch in Cheam and build two homes in their place have been refused by Sutton Council.

In May 2024, Charlotte O’Brien applied to Sutton Council to demolish the garage and porch at 1 Wildes Cottages, Ewell Road, and build a two-storey building in its place.

Had it been approved, the building would have provided accommodation on the second floor.

The proposal also suggested installing rubbish stores and spots for bikes to be parked.

Two parking spaces were also proposed in the rear gardens.

There would also have been a rear dormer and front roof lights for aestheticism.

Charlotte said that her plans followed Policy 29 of the Sutton Local Plan 2018, which states that Sutton Council will not allow any new buildings if it impact neighbours negatively.

Specifically, if residents will have to face noise disturbance, or lose outlook, privacy and light.

In her application, Charlotte said: “The flats opposite this site being constructed do not have habitable rooms to the rear and so the development would not impact on the future occupants of these dwellings.

“The proposed extensions would not impact on adjoining occupiers in terms of loss of light, outlook and privacy subject to a condition in a formal application ensuring the flat roof of the rear extension is not used as a roof terrace.”

Charlotte said the development was unlikely to result in a material loss of light, outlook or privacy or result in extreme increases in noise and disturbance to the neighbours.

However, Sutton Council has refused planning permission for this to happen.

Strategic Director Spencer Palmer said: “The proposed development is a cramped development within a constrained plot which would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would be out of character with the surrounding area.”

The Council felt that the parking spaces would result in unsafe parking arrangements which would badly affect future residents and pedestrians.

It also felt that the parking spaces would make the rubbish storage inaccessible for rubbish collection.

Spencer added: “The proposed development fails to provide satisfactory quality of living accommodation for future residents as it would not meet minimum space standards would lead to cramped living conditions.”

TfL also objected to the plans, refusing to support them unless the parking and access arrangements were amended.

TfL’s objection was: “Access to the parking space in front of the existing property requires a vehicle to drive over a driveway that is not theirs and will be required for access to the proposed dwelling.

“Therefore, this situation would result in unsatisfactory parking and access arrangements such as ad hoc parking, overhanging vehicles on the driveway cars bumping up kerbs.

“This must be amended prior to TfL being supportive of the application.”

Sutton Council refused the application on July 17.