ITEM NUMBER

Document Sample
ITEM NUMBER Powered By Docstoc
					ITEM NUMBER 1

APPLN. NO.:      :PA/01/0192                   Land at 13 Wheatsheaf Lane, Staines
VALID DATE       :05/04/2001
EXPIRY DATE      :31/05/2001                   (A) Erection of a 21 metre high
CTTEE DATE       :18/07/2001 (WH)              telecommunications mast to carry 6 antennas
                                               and 2 microwave dishes, equipment cabin
                                               and plant, enclosed by chain link fencing.

                                               As shown on Drawings Nos.
                                               4000/1535/A3/01,/02,/03; and
                                               VF/STD/A3/39A and /51; for Vodafone Ltd.

ITEM NUMBER 2

APPLN. NO.:      :PA/01/0225                   (B) Erection of a 22.5 metre high
VALID DATE       :05/04/2001                   telecommunications lattice tower with 6
EXPIRY DATE      :31/05/2001                   antennas, 6 microwave dishes, and 2
CTTEE DATE       :18/07/2001 (WH)              equipment cabins, and associated ancillary
                                               works, within a fenced compound.

                                               As shown on Drawings Nos. 100107/P/003
                                               and /004; and 100107/D/001; for One 2 One
                                               and Orange Personal Communications Ltd.


WARD: Staines Town

1.    Borough Local Plan

      Green Belt
      Area Liable to Flood

2.    Relevant Planning History

2.1   On the Staines Town FC‟s site (which adjoins the sites for the 2 proposals) the
      following telecommunications development has been permitted:-

       SP/98/0516       Erection of a 20 metre high          Approved
                        monopole with antennas,              December, 1998
                        equipment cabin, and compound.

       PA/00/0016       Enlargement of existing cellular     Approved
                        radio base station site, involving   March, 2000
                        the erection of a new 21 metre
                        high lattice tower (replacing the
                        existing 20 metre high monopole),
                        relocating 3 x-polar antennas and
                        2 microwave dish antennas,
                        installing 3 new x-polar antennas,
                        and 2 new microwave dish
                        antennas, new equipment cabin,
                        and fencing.
2.2   Under a Legal Agreement to be signed in connection with redevelopment of Staines
      FC‟s site, the existing monopole would be removed and the PA/00/0016 permission
      would be rescinded, if and when the redevelopment scheme proceeds.

3.    Description of Current Proposals

3.1   Both the application sites are on land at the rear of 13 Wheatsheaf Lane; which is a
      dwelling with extensive grounds behind it with a number of outbuildings. The precise
      application sites for the 2 proposals are shown on the O.S. extract accompanying this
      report. This also shows Staines Town FC‟s curtilage to the west; and the site of the
      existing telecommunications monopole which has Vodafone equipment on it, and the
      unimplemented PA/00/0016 consent which was to accommodate Vodafone and One 2
      One equipment to replace the monopole.

3.2   Application (A) proposes a 21m high mast with 6 antennas above it at the top and 2
      microwave dishes below. It would be installed within a compound enclosed by 1.8m
      high chain link fencing surmounted by barbed wire, within which would contain an
      equipment cabin and a small amount of plant. The installation would be for Vodafone.

3.3   Application (B) proposes a 22.5m high lattice tower. At the top of the tower (but not
      beyond the 22.5m height) would be affixed in descending order 3 antennas, 3
      microwave dishes, then 3 antennas and 3 microwave dishes again. It would be within
      a compound enclosed by 1.9m high mesh panel fencing surmounted by barbed wire.
      Also within the compound would be 2 equipment cabins and associated works. The
      installation would serve two telecommunications operators, namely One 2 One and
      Orange.

4.    Consultations

4.1   Environment Agency – (A) recommends conditions 3-8 set out below, and, in relation
      to mast (B) recommends similar conditions as for application (A).

4.2   Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – no highway requirements on either application.

5.    Third Party Representations

5.1   In respect of application (A), letters have been received from 12 residents in the
      locality and the Penton Hook Association objecting on the following grounds:-

      i.    Visual intrusion. The increase in size of the proposal in comparison to the
            existing monopole is highlighted
      ii. One mast in the locality is enough
      iii. An alternative siting should be sought
      iv. Green Belt
      v. Possible health implications
      vi. Interference with electrical equipment
      vii. Effect on property values
      viii. Need for mast questioned

5.2   With regard to application (B), letters have been received from 16 residences in the
      locality and the Penton Hook Association. Objections (i) – (vii) as noted in para 5.1
      have been raised for this proposal, plus:-

      - The proposal would be close to residences.
6.    Issues

      - Telecommunications development; particularly with regard to location and visual
        intrusion
      - Flooding

7.    Planning Considerations

7.1   Policy BE36 of the Local Plan deals specifically with proposed telecommunications
      development and Policy BE1 is a general design policy. Policy GB1 is of relevance to
      the Green Belt; within which the sites are situated. Government guidance as set out in
      PPG8 on telecommunications is also a consideration. The nature of
      telecommunications development often means that it needs to be located in the Green
      Belt. Both applications have accompanying material which show gaps in the three
      telecommunication operators‟ networks in the general locality of the site. Also, two of
      the three operators are or would have been catered for on the Staines Town FC‟s site,
      on land just to the north west of the present application sites. Application (A) seeks to
      replace the existing Vodafone monopole on Staines FC‟s premises, but with an
      upgrade with 8 items of equipment on a mast. The applicant in this case has a letter
      from Staines FC stating that it would enter into a Legal Agreement to the effect that the
      existing monopole would go upon the implementation of this proposal, and permission
      PA/00/0016 would be dealt with by an unopposed revocation order, both matters not to
      attract compensation. Application (B) involves a new operator (Orange), and no such
      Legal Agreement is put forward under that proposal.

7.2   The locality for both proposals is in the Green Belt, and whilst there are buildings on
      Staines FC‟s land and the rear of 13 Wheatsheaf Lane, it is within an area of generally
      open land. However, the open land is fringed by residences in fairly close proximity in
      Wheatsheaf Lane, Laleham Road, Penton Hook Road and St Pinnock Avenue. Policy
      BE36 stresses the need for particular care in respect of telecommunications
      development in the Green Belt and residential areas. Whilst the proposals are not
      within a residential area I consider that the residences nearby are a relevant factor.
      Also, the existing floodlights at Staines Town FC add to the visual clutter of high
      structures by the proposed sites, and accentuate its sensitivity.

7.3   Given the factors referred to in para 7.2 I do not consider that two telecommunication
      structures would be acceptable in close proximity. Under application (A) this would not
      occur, provided the Legal Agreement noted in para 7.1 is entered into. Also, whilst the
      visual intrusion of the proposed installation would be greater than for the existing
      Staines FC monopole, it would be similar in comparison with the development
      approved under PA/00/0016. The attached appendix showing the mast approved
      under application PA/00/0016 alongside that proposed under PA/01/0192 illustrates
      this. I therefore consider the proposal would be acceptable visually; and in relation to
      Policies GB1, BE1 and BE36; subject to the prior finalisation of the required Legal
      Agreement.

7.4   The situation for application (B) would be different. The proposed tower and
      equipment affixed to it would be visually more intrusive in association with the existing
      monopole, or either the tower under PA/00/0016 (were that to be erected) or the
      application (A) mast. Since the applicant cannot safeguard the situation whereby two
      high structures with equipment would or could exist I do not consider that this proposal
      would be acceptable.
7.5   Government Policy on Telecommunication development is to encourage mast sharing
      by different operators. This will, however, inevitably result in more antennae and
      dishes being accommodated on the proposed mast and will possibly require it to be
      higher. Given the sensitive location of this mast close to residential properties, I would
      not wish to encourage the provision of any mast with a greater visual impact, than is
      presently proposed.

7.6   Both proposals would be acceptable in respect of flooding subject to the Environment
      Agency‟s conditions. Policy BE29 of the Local Plan would not therefore be infringed.

7.7   I now turn to the third party points not covered above. Both proposals would comply
      with the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection)
      guidelines for the general public as recommended in the Stewart Report, and
      accordingly the health issue would be satisfactorily addressed. There should not be
      significant interference arising from the proposals. Lastly, the affect on property values
      is not a valid planning objection.

8.    Recommendation

      (A) PA/01/0192:         Subject to the prior finalization of a Legal Agreement to secure
                              the removal of the existing monopole and associated works,
                              and the unopposed revocation of planning permission
                              PA/00/0016, on the Staines FC site; both subject to no
                              compensation; GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

      1)      DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)

      2)      COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT (C6))

      3)      The equipment cabin shall be constructed with underfloor voids, with the
              oversite concrete finished at existing ground level; with the underside of the
              floor structure set at or above the modelled 1 in 100 year flood water level of
              13.96 metres AOD(N); and with openings sufficient in size and number to
              allow free entry and exit of flood water. The approved voids shall be
              maintained open and free from obstruction at all times.

      4)      Openings and any associated grilles to the under-floor voids of the equipment
              cabin shall be constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and
              approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences,
              and shall be retained as such thereafter.

      5)      The concrete base to the equipment cabin shall be constructed with the
              finished level at or below the existing immediate surrounding ground level.

      6)      Any walls or fencing constructed within or around the site shall be designed to
              be permeable to flood water.

      7)      There shall be no raising of existing ground levels on the site.

      8)      No spoil or materials shall be deposited or stored on that part of the site lying
              within the area of land liable to flood.

      9)      The radio frequency radiation emission from the equipment hereby permitted
              shall not breach the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
              Protection guidelines for the general public.
10)       The power output/emission from the equipment hereby permitted shall be the
          lowest possible to allow such to operate effectively.

11)       PLANTING ON SITE DETAILS REQUIRED (C23) Insert 12 months

REASONS

1)        R2

2)        R6

3)        To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and
          reduction of flood water storage capacity.

4)        To ensure that free passage of flood water through the under-floor voids of the
          building is provided for.

5)        To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flow and
          loss of flood storage capacity.

6)        To prevent obstruction to the flow and storage of floodwater, with a
          consequent increased risk of flooding.

7)        To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and
          reduction of flood storage capacity.

8)        To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and
          reduction of flood storage capacity.

9)        (Applicable to conditions 9 and 10) To safeguard occupiers of properties in
          particular and the general public in the locality, especially having regard to the
          recommendations in the Stewart Report.

11)       To improve the appearance of the development.

INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

The applicant is advised that in reaching these decisions the Council has had regard to
the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is considered
relevant to the decision.

      Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies GB1, BE1, BE29, and BE36.


(B) PA/01/0225: REFUSE, for the following reason:-

1. The proposed telecommunications tower with equipment affixed to it, in association
   with the existing telecommunications monopole and affixed equipment on the
   Staines Town Football Club site or with the telecommunications tower/mast and
   affixed equipment permitted under PA/00/0016 and PA/01/0192, in very close
   proximity, would result in unacceptable visual intrusion to the Green Belt locality
   and neighbouring residential properties, and accordingly would be unacceptable in
   relation to Policies GB1, BE1 and BE36 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan
   2001.
INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

The applicant is advised that in reaching these decisions the Council has had regard to
the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is considered
relevant to the decision.

    Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies GB1, BE1, BE29, and BE36.
ITEM NUMBER 3

APPLN. NO.:     :PA/01/0101                     Former Ambulance Station, Long Lane,
VALID DATE      :12/02/2001                     Stanwell.
EXPIRY DATE     :09/04/2001
CTTEE DATE      :18/07/2001 (EJS)               Erection of a care home with associated
                                                parking and garden area to include new
                                                access to Long Lane following demolition of
                                                existing ambulance station and hospital
                                                offices.

                                                As shown on drawing nos. WHC204(D) 01C,
                                                03 received 08/06/2001 and WHC204(D) 02
                                                and site location plan received on
                                                12/02/2001and WHC204(D) 02A received on
                                                03/07/2001 for Westminster Health Care Ltd.


WARD: Stanwell South

1.    Borough Local Plan

       -   The site falls within the existing urban area

2.    Relevant Planning History

      PA/98/0560             Construction of estate roads and             Approved
                             erection of 88 dwellings comprising 1, 2,    09/12/1998
                             3, and 4 bedroom affordable and private      subject to a legal
                             units together with hospital staff           agreement (not yet
                             accommodation and nursing care facility      completed)
                             and provision of public open space.


3.    Description of Current Proposal

3.1   The application site relates to part of Ashford Hospital and is situated on the eastern
      side of Long Lane. The site is bounded by Ashdale Close to the south and Long
      Lane to the east. It comprises the former Ambulance Station which is now a
      redundant building. There are a number of trees to the north of this building many of
      which are protected by Tree Preservation Order no. 186. The site also includes part
      of the existing hospital offices.

3.2   This is a full planning application for the erection of a care home with associated
      parking and garden area to be accessed from Long Lane. The building will have
      three main wings. It will comprise a total of 54 bedrooms, 29 no. on the ground floor
      and 25 no. on the first floor. Of the 54 rooms, 34 no. will have en-suite shower
      facilities. In addition, there will be a number of other rooms including day rooms,
      kitchen, office/admin/meeting accommodation, laundry/ironing room and an external
      court at first floor level which will be fully enclosed. The applicant has confirmed that
      the first floor residents will be Elderly Mentally Infirm (EMI). The ground floor
      residents will be continuing Care Health Authority Funded (with whom Westminster
      Health Care Ltd have secured a contract) together with other care clients (client
      group not yet confirmed).
3.3    Elevations of the proposal incorporate hipped pitched roofs and gable ends. The
       proposal will be constructed from red facing brickwork, brickwork detail to cills and
       Antique Brown Marley roof tile. There will also be an element of render on some of
       the elevations.

3.4    The proposal includes a new access from Long Lane which will be centrally located.
       A total of 14 car spaces will be laid out at the front to serve the development. There
       will also be 3 parking spaces and a service vehicle turning area at the rear. Cycle
       parking facilities will be provided adjacent to the main entrance. The remainder of the
       site will be used as garden area. The application will involve the removal of 7 trees. 5
       of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. It is proposed to plant 2 no.
       replacement trees.

3.5    The applicant has confirmed that a total of 63 staff are expected to be employed at
       the home, which includes part-time and full-time staff. At the busiest time (8am to
       3pm) there will approximately 24 staff on duty. The applicant states that the busiest
       time for visitors is at the weekend, when staff movements are at their lowest.

4.     Consultations

4.1    Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – raises no objection to access. Makes detailed
       comments which may be conditioned. Also recommends a payment to introduce on
       street parking restrictions if required in the future.

4.2    Head of Environmental Health – raises no objection on air quality grounds on the
       basis of the traffic generation report submitted and prepared in 1994. Also
       recommends a standard contaminated land condition be imposed.

4.3    Tree Officer – no objection. Recommends replacement trees should be at least 20-
       25cm girth.

4.4    Surrey Police – No objection. The proposal will provide a safe and secure
       environment for the residence.

5.     Third Party Representations

5.1    No representations have been received.

6.     Issues

        Principle of development
        Layout/design
        Residential amenity
        Trees
        Parking
        Access/traffic

7.     Planning Considerations

7.1 Planning application PA/98/0560 (referred to in Planning History above) related to the
    current application site plus adjoining land. This application which included a nursing
    care facility was resolved to be approved, subject to the completion of a legal agreement.
    Whilst the agreement has not been finalised, it is clear that the principle of a nursing care
    facility has been established on this site.
7.2 One of the main issues to consider is the layout and design of the proposal and the
    impact on residential amenity and character of the area. The proposed building is larger
    than that illustrated at the outline stage and in particular, it extends further west. The
    nearest property is 2 Ashdale Close. The proposal would, at its nearest point from the
    side boundary of the rear garden of 2 Ashdale Close, be 4.8 metres. A single storey
    element which extended to 1.5 metres from the boundary with this residential property
    was originally proposed but has now been deleted. The rest of the building would be set
    further away from the southern boundary. Beyond no. 2 Ashdale Close, the southern
    boundary borders garages and a parking area with dwellings beyond. The Council‟s
    Supplementary Guidance for the design of new residential development and extensions
    provides detailed guidance on the siting of two-storey development. Whilst the proposal
    is not for pure residential, the guidance does provide a useful tool for assessing the
    impact on adjacent residential properties. The guidance states that development should
    not break the vertical plane of a line drawn at 45°. The proposal does break this line for
    part for the development. However, the guidance also states that the policy will not be
    applied to development situated beyond 6 metres from the flank boundary. The building
    at its nearest point is 4.8 m at first floor level from the flank boundary of no. 2. With this
    in mind, and in view of the fact that the proposal is located to the north of the dwellings, I
    am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unreasonable loss of natural light,
    sunlight and outlook to adjacent residential properties. In terms of overlooking, the
    nearest window in the southern elevation at first floor level serves a stairwell and will be
    obscure glazed. The remaining windows at first floor are at least 14 metres from the
    southern boundary with the residential properties further beyond. I do not consider that
    there would be any unacceptable loss of privacy.

7.3 The proposed development would be set away from the boundaries of the site. The
    elevations provide a traditional style building which would be in keeping with the
    surrounding area. The development includes some amenity space for the residents in
    the form of garden areas.

7.4 The area TPO on this site was promoted at a time when it became clear that the site was
    likely to be redeveloped to enable the Council to be able to influence which trees would
    be retained. Whilst this scheme involves the loss of 5 trees covered by the area TPO, 3
    of these were shown to be removed as part of the previous proposal. The Tree Officer
    has commented that trees to be removed are only of modest quality and are included
    within a group order (as opposed to being individually protected). Given the nature of
    these trees and their position within a line of trees within a well-treed area in the centre of
    the site, I do not consider the Council could reasonably insist on their retention.
    However, a replacement planting condition has been included in the recommendation.

7.5 The proposal makes provision for 17 parking spaces, which is 3 spaces in excess of the
    parking standard. The applicant has provided parking survey information for a care home
    comprising 56 beds elsewhere in the country (dated 1994). It shows that the peak
    number of vehicles parked was 17 whilst the average number of vehicles parked was
    9.88. It is acknowledged that this survey is some 7 years old. However, in view of the
    fact that the parking standards are met, it is considered that the parking provision is
    satisfactory.

7.6 In terms of access and traffic issues, the Council‟s Head of Engineering has assessed
    the amended plans and considers that the access is acceptable. Some detailed
    comments relating to the car park are provided but these may be dealt with by means of
    a condition. Servicing arrangements are shown to the rear and it will be necessary to
    ensure that adequate account is taken of service delivery to the Care Home when the
    redevelopment of the adjoining site comes forward. Whilst the parking standards are met,
    in view of the fact that there is a high level of staffing and
       the fact that 3 of the parking spaces and the service vehicle delivery area is at the
       rear of the site, adjacent to land which may be developed in the future, it is
       considered that the applicant should finance waiting restrictions in the surrounding
       roads if it is found that the care home generates on street parking to warrant it. There
       will be a 5 year period during which the waiting restrictions may be implemented. The
       applicant agrees to providing a sum of £1,500 in this regard.

7.7 It is therefore recommended that permission be granted subject to the prior completion of
    a legal agreement.

8   Recommendation

8.1 Subject to the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement to secure funding to
    provide waiting restrictions in the surrounding roads, if considered necessary, GRANT
    subject to the following conditions:-

              1. DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)

              2. COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT (C5)

              3. PARKING MAINTAINED (C14)

              4. PROVISION FOR LOADING (C16)

              5. PLANTING ON SITE DETAILS REQUIRED (C23) (Insert “the
                 replacement trees shall be at least 20-25cm girth”).

              6. TREE PROTECTION DETAILS REQUIRED (C25)

              7. MATERIALS (C34)

              8. MEANS OF ENCLOSURE – DETAILS REQUIRED (C32)

              9. OBSCURE GLAZING (C42) Insert “first floor external court”, “southern”.

              10. NO FURTHER OPENINGS (C44) Insert “southern”, “development”.

              11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details
                  of the proposed cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved by the
                  Local Planning Authority. The agreed cycle parking shall be installed prior
                  to the development being brought into use.

              12. DISABLED ACCESS (C87)

              13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a plan
                  shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority
                  showing the detailed car parking layout. The development shall be
                  completed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the development
                  being brought into use.

              14. SITE INVESTIGATION CONTAMINATED LAND (C94)
        15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the five
            Tree Preservation Orders trees to be felled shall be clearly marked and
            agreed on site by the Local Planning Authority. The trees shall be
            returned to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

REASONS

                   1.      R2

                   2.      R5

                   3.      R14

                   4.      R16

                   5.      R23

                   6.      R25

                   7.      R34

                   8.      R32

                   9.      R42

                   10.     R44

                   11.     To ensure satisfactory provision

                   12.     R87

                   13.     To ensure a satisfactory development in highway terms.

                   14.     R94

                   15.     To ensure that only the agreed trees may be felled and to
                           envisage the remaining trees are protected.

INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

1. The applicant is advised that in reaching these decisions the Council has had
   regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is
   considered relevant to the decisions.

   Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001        : BE1, BE5, BE6, M6, M8, SC1, SC2,
   SC3, SC6.

   Surrey Structure Plan 1994: PE10, DP1, DP2
ITEM NUMBER 4

APPLN. NO.:          :PA/01/0386                    4 New Park Road, Ashford
VALID DATE           :07/06/2001
EXPIRY DATE          :02/08/2001                    Demolition of existing house and outbuildings
CTTEE DATE           :18/07/2001 (WH)               and erection of a bungalow, 4 no. two-storey
                                                    houses, and garaging and parking, and an
                                                    access roadway (OUTLINE).

                                                    As shown on location plan and drawing no.
                                                    NPR-1; for Maultway Homes Ltd.


WARD: Ashford East

8.        Borough Local Plan

     -   - Within the urban area

9.        Relevant Planning History

2.2      The house at 4 Park Road was approved in 1958 (STA.P.3688/2B), with a garage at
         the rear permitted in 1979 (C/79/295). The bulk of the rear of the site (plus the plot of
         2 Burleigh Gardens) was the subject of the following application:-

          E/88/815          Erection of 4 four-bedroom            Non-determination.
                            houses, and demolition of 2           Appeal dismissed
                            Burleigh Gardens to facilitate the    May, 1989
                            construction of an access road.       (T/APP/Z3635/A/88/108885/P2)

          An application on the current application site, but involving land at 6 New Park Road
          was submitted recently for the following:-

          PA/01/0133        Demolition of existing house and      Withdrawn
                            workshop, and erection of 6           May, 2001
                            houses garaging/parking, a new
                            garage/workshop with associated
                            hardstanding, and an access
                            roadway.


10.       Description of Current Proposal

3.4      The application site comprises 0.19ha of land on the southern side of New Park Road.
         The front section comprises the curtilage of 4 New Park Road; a vacant 2-storey
         detached house. The remainder of the site is presently accessed via 6 New Park
         Road. There is the garage built under C/79/295 at the very north, before the site
         widens out. There are a number of outbuildings on this area, plus a polytunnel and
         open storage; although the western section is largely open grassed area with some
         evergreen trees by the site boundary. There is a further strip of land off the south
         eastern corner of the central portion of the site, which is also used for open storage.
         The outbuildings and polytunnel referred to, plus the open storage, are used by the
         occupier of 6 New Park Road in connection with a business operated from that
         property for the manufacture and sale of fencing materials, paving slabs and crazy
         paving, and the sale of garden sundries.
3.5   The surrounding area is almost exclusively residential, being a mixture of 2-storey
      houses and bungalows. 6 New Park Road has established use rights for the
      commercial uses noted above.

3.6   It is proposed to demolish all the existing buildings on site, and erect 5 dwellings. The
      submitted application is in outline only, but with details of siting and means of access
      to be agreed at this stage. Access would be via an access roadway off New Park
      Road entering the site where the curtilage of No. 4 New Park Road is currently
      situated. The roadway would run southward with 4 two-storey houses off the western
      side within the wide central portion of the site. The 2 northern houses would both be
      detached and 4-bedroomed. The northernmost one would have a single integral
      garage and 2 parking spaces, whilst the other would have a detached double garage
      and run-up. On the strip of land in the south east corner of the site a 3-bedroomed
      bungalow would be erected, with a single integral garage and a run-up. A copy of the
      layout plan is attached as an Appendix.

3.7   Indicative floor plans have been submitted for all the proposed dwellings, plus a profile
      plan for the bungalow showing it to be 4.8m high to a central ridge. The roof designs
      of the other 4 dwellings are more generally indicated, as is landscaping for the site with
      existing trees by the central portion of the western site boundaries to be retained in all
      but one case plus new tree planting nearby and at the fronts of 3 of the houses.

11.    Consultations

4.3   Head of Engineering Services (Consultancy) – has suggested minor amendments
      which have been incorporated into the scheme.

12.    Third Party Representations

5.3   At the time of writing this report letters have been received from 2 nearby residences
      objecting on the following grounds:-
      - loss of amenity, including during the construction phase
      - loss of view/outlook
      - parking
      - devaluation of properties
      - overlooking and loss of privacy
      - possible effect on services
      - traffic generation and safety

13.    Issues

      - Housing provision and density
      - Layout and design

14.    Planning Considerations

7.8   The Council‟s housing provision target is set out in Policy H1 of the Local Plan. Policy
      H2 states that the Council will seek to ensure the provision of housing by encouraging
      the development of all land appropriate for this purpose. Given that the surrounding
      area is almost exclusively residential I consider that residential development is
      acceptable in principle on this site. Policy H2 does, however, note that any housing
      proposals should be at densities consistent with the character and proper planning of
      the areas concerned. Para 58 of PPG3 (Housing); published by the Government in
      March 2000; states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid developments which
      make inefficient use of land, defining this as schemes less than 30 dwellings per
      hectare. It goes on further to give encouragement to schemes making efficient use of
      land, defined as between 30-50 dwellings per hectare. This stance is generally
      reiterated in Policy DN12 of the Deposit Draft of the Surrey Structure Plan 2001. With
      this application the density would be 26.3 dwellings per hectare. However, bearing in
      mind the backland nature of the site and the difficulties this presents in achieving an
      acceptable layout, and also taking the character of the area into account, I consider
      that this is an appropriate density; reflecting a balance between these factors and the
      Government‟s guidance.

7.9   The type of units to be provided would fit in well with the character of the area, and be
      of an appropriate storey height. They are situated in positions so that loss of light,
      obtrusion and outlook should not be significant to any neighbouring properties. Nor
      would there be unacceptable overlooking. The rear facades of the 2-storey houses
      would all be no closer than the minimum 10.5m distance from neighbouring gardens
      specified in the Council‟s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Also, the
      indicative designs show that the northernmost and southernmost houses would not
      give rise to unacceptable oblique overlooking. All the rear gardens of the new
      properties would be of adequate sizes, above the minimum set out in the Council‟s
      SPG. The garaging/parking provision would be in line with the Council‟s adopted
      standards; and the proposed access roadway would be landscaped along its flanks to
      mitigate its impact on neighbouring properties.

7.10 Traffic generated by the development would not be great and would emerge into New
     Park Road, which can satisfactorily cope with the small increase in capacity without
     diminishing safety. It should also be noted that the Head of Engineering has raised no
     objections. This would be different from the E/88/815 scheme where the Inspector had
     concerns about the impact of traffic on the relatively short cul-de-sac of Burleigh
     Gardens: a reason unlikely to be supported today given Government Guidance in
     PPG3.

7.11 Lastly, the proposal would eliminate the unneighbourly commercial development on
     site. Whilst, established use rights (under C/77/EUC/2) formally relate only to the
     house curtilage of 6 New Park Road, the Inspector for E/88/815 noted this use on
     much of the present application site in 1989, over 12 years ago. It is therefore likely
     that a case for established use rights for commercial purposes could be made on this
     part of the site. I consider that this factor is due a good deal of weight. I conclude that
     all aspects of the layout and design of the proposal are acceptable, and in particular
     Policies BE1, BE2, BE5, BE6, BE11, and M8 would be complied with. Moreover, the
     scheme by eliminating the commercial use, would provide for a more appropriate use
     on site in character with the locality.

7.12 I now turn to the third party points not covered above. Any loss of amenity during the
     construction phase would be temporary. Devaluation of properties is not a valid
     planning objection. There should be no overloading of services as a result of the
     proposal.

  15. Recommendation

      PERMIT, subject to the following conditions:-

      12)      DURATION OUTLINE (C1) Omit “siting of the buildings” and “means of
               access thereto”.
13)       DETAILED DRAWINGS (C4) Omit “(i) the siting of the buildings” and (iii) the
          means of access”, and renumber.

14)       COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT – OCCUPIABLE STRUCTURES (C5)) Insert
          “each ….. development”.

15)       PARKING REQUIRED (C11)

16)       PLANTING ON SITE DETAILS REQUIRED (C23) Insert “12 months”.

17)       FENCING DETAILS REQUIRED (C29) Insert “western, southern and
          eastern” and “1.83”.

18)       MATERIALS (C34)

19)       ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR REFUSE DETAILS REQUIRED (C37)

20)       RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT –
          EXTENSIONS AND OUTBUILDINGS (C55)

REASONS

10)       R1

11)       R4

12)       R5

13)       R11

14)       R23 (a)

15)       R29

16)       R34

17)       R37

18)       (i) To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
          (ii) To ensure that the new dwellings have rear gardens of sufficient area, in
          character with the locality.

INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

2. The applicant is advised that in reaching these decisions the Council has had
   regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is
   considered relevant to the decisions.

      Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies H1, H2, BE1, BE2, BE5, BE6, BE11
      and M8.

      Surrey Structure Plan 1994: -

      Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft), Jan 2001: Policy DN12
ITEM NUMBER 5

APPLN. NO.:       :PA/01/0266                    The Mill, Horton Road, Stanwell Moor
VALID DATE        :11/05/2001
EXPIRY DATE       :06/07/2001                    (A) Demolition of existing industrial/storage
CTTEE DATE        :18/07/2001 (WH)               building, and erection of a replacement
                                                 building.

                                                 As shown on location plan and drawing nos.
                                                 7279/3 & 4; for Halewood Chemicals Ltd.


ITEM NUMBER 6

APPLN. NO.:       :PA/01/0275                    (B) Alterations to the roof of existing building,
VALID DATE        :14/06/2001                    plus elevational alterations, new screens,
EXPIRY DATE       :09/08/2001                    and pedestrian access over stream.
CTTEE DATE        :18/07/2001 (WH)
                                                 As shown on location plan and drawing nos.
                                                 7279/1 & 2 for Halewood Chemicals Ltd.



WARD: Stanwell North

16.       Borough Local Plan

      -   Green Belt
      -   Colne Valley Park
      -   Area Liable to Flood
      -   Public Safety Zone

17.       Relevant Planning History

      PA/99/0714           Construction of new roadway exit,          Approved:
                           roadway itself, additional parking, plus   December 2000
                           landscaping.

18.       Description of Current Proposals

3.8   The application comprises 1.01 ha of land bounded by Horton Road to the south,
      Airport Way beyond the site to the north, the River Colne to the east, with a residence
      “Burnside” and open land to the west. There is a complex of buildings on the site
      which are used by a number of firms, by far the largest of which is the applicant
      company.

3.9   The existing building, the subject of application (A) is the westernmost of the complex
      of buildings, and stands somewhat apart from the main complex. It is proposed to
      demolish the existing building and erect a replacement building in the same location.
      Both existing and proposed buildings are/would be of 249.4m2 floor area. Whilst both
      are/would be single-storey, the existing building is 3.6m and 4.25m high at its two
      highest points, but the proposed building would be 6.3m high to eaves and 7.6m high
      to ridge. The proposal would result in minor changes to the existing car park.


3.10 The applicant‟s agent has written clarifying the existing and proposed occupation and
     use of the current and proposed buildings and the need for the latter. The relevant
     sections of his letter are set out below.
       “The users are local businesses providing local services. Their efficiency in the
       current building is impaired by its dilapidated state and lack of height. An increase in
       height is proposed to accommodate the use of forklift trucks. If approved this would
       allow the storage and freight forwarding activities previously carried out from the site
       to be accommodated and contained in this building which would then meet their
       needs. The building proposed replaces a similar floor area of existing structure which
       has been in occupation for many years and forms part of the mill complex. My clients
       have made considerable efforts to adapt these buildings to keep them in occupation
       and use and to maintain employment in this location. Many of those employed live
       locally”.

3.11   Turning to application (B), this involves an existing building just to the east of that
       which is the subject of application (A). There is a very narrow stream between the
       two. It is proposed to alter the roof of the existing building. The present roof is a very
       shallow mono-pitch with a parapet surround in part. The mono-pitch and parapet
       would remain with the proposed alterations, but with these being 0.4m – 0.6m higher.
       The elevations of the building would also be altered with some new screens
       introduced on the longer north western and south eastern sides. A pedestrian access
       would also be formed over the stream.

3.12   The applicant‟s agent has written explaining that the existing building is substandard,
       with a very low standard of insulation. In order to improve this both the floor and roof
       will require thicker construction, with additional support depth required to the roof
       structure. The slight increase in height would also provide improved ventilation and
       standard amenities. Existing on-site occupiers would continue to use the building.

19.    Consultations

4.4    Civil Aviation Authority – any views will be reported verbally.

4.5    Environment Agency – any views will be reported verbally.

4.6    Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – no highway requirements on either application.

20.    Third Party Representations

5.4    Letters have been received from 4 residences in the locality objecting on the following
       grounds to application (A).

       -       Green Belt
       -       Flooding implications
       -       Use of the proposed building is not clear, and the existing building is presently a
               disused old barn
       -       Traffic generation
       -       Weight restriction over nearby bridge is not being observed.

5.2    At the time of writing this report no representations have been received on application
       (B).


21.    Issues

       -         Green Belt
       -         Colne Valley Park
       -         Flooding
           -     Public Safety Zone and height safeguarding
           -     Design and parking
22.    Planning Considerations

7.13   Members are advised that PPG2 (paras 3.2 and 3.4 in particular), Policy PE2 of the
       Surrey Structure Plan and Policy GB1 of the Local Plan are all relevant in an
       assessment of the proposals in relation to the Green Belt. The proposed building
       under application (A) is clearly inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and
       accordingly would only be acceptable if very special circumstances apply. Whilst the
       footprint/floorspace of the proposed building would be the same as the existing
       structure, the height and volume of the new building would not. The relevant figures
       are:-

                                           HEIGHT                          VOLUME

       Existing Building                3.6m – 4.25m                         877m3
       Proposed Building                    7.6m                            1785m3

       As can be seen from these figures, the volume of the proposed building would be just
       over twice as much as for the existing building, and this would significantly detract
       from the openness of the Green Belt. I do not consider that the factors put forward by
       the applicant‟s agent noted in para 3.3 above constitute very special circumstances,
       and consequently the proposal would be unacceptable. Thus it would be contrary to
       PPG2, Policy PE2 and Policy GB1.

7.14   The alterations to the building under application (B) are minimal in their impact on the
       Green Belt, and I consider that this is a factor to be taken into account for the
       increased height and brick piers and railings to the proposed pedestrian access over
       the stream. Whilst strictly speaking these would amount to inappropriate
       development I consider that in this particular case the factors noted in para 3.5 above
       and the improved access for pedestrians can be said to constitute very special
       circumstances outweighing the negligible effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

7.15   One of the key aims of the Colne Valley Park Strategy is to resist urbanisation of the
       Park and to safeguard existing areas of countryside from inappropriate development.
       This aim would be prejudiced by the proposal under application (A) for the same
       reasons as noted in para 7.1 above. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to
       Policy RU23 of the Local Plan. This would not be the case for the application (B)
       proposal.

7.16   The proposals need to be assessed against Policy BE29 of the Local Plan in respect
       of flooding. Since neither increase the footprints of the relevant building I do not
       consider that there would be grounds to object under Policy BE29.

7.17   The proposed building under application (A) would be of a comparable height to other
       buildings in the complex on site. Also, no increase in people working on site is
       envisaged. Therefore I consider that the proposal would be acceptable in public
       safety zone and height safeguarding terms, and would not be in conflict with Policy
       A4 of the Local Plan. The same stance applies to application (B), only to a greater
       degree in relation to height.

7.18   The design of the new and altered buildings in themselves, and the small change to
       the existing car park would both be acceptable, and Policies BE1 and M8 of the Local
       Plan would not be infringed.

7.19   I now turn to the third party points in respect of application (A) not dealt with above.
       The existing building has been used for industrial/storage purposes and that would be
       its proposed use. The proposal should not generate any significant increase in traffic,
       and the Head of Engineering (Consultancy) has raised no objection. The point
      regarding observance of the weight restriction is a highways (as opposed to planning)
      matter, which needs to be treated separately from this application.

23.   Recommendation

      (A)   PA/01/0266    REFUSE for the following reasons:-

      21) The proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and
          the increased height and volume of the proposed building in comparison with the
          existing building would diminish the openness of the Green Belt. It would
          therefore be contrary to PPG2 , Policy PE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994
          and Policy GB1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001.

      22) The proposal would conflict with a key aim of the Strategy for the Colne Valley
          Park, which is to resist urbanisation of the Park and to safeguard existing areas
          of the countryside from inappropriate development. It would therefore be
          contrary to Policy RU23 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 and Policy
          PE6 of the Surrey Structure Plan..

      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

      1.     The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
             regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
             Each is considered relevant to the decision.

             Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies GB1, BE1, BE29, RU23, A4
             and M8.

             Surrey Structure Plan 1994: Policy PE2.

      (B)    PA/01/0275: Subject to no material representations being received by 19th
             July, 2001,  PERMIT subject to the following conditions:-

      1.     DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)

      2.     COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT (C6)



      REASONS

      19)    R2

      20)    R6

      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

      1.     The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
             regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
             Each is considered relevant to the decision.

             Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies GB1, BE1, BE29, RU23, A4
             and M8

             Surrey Structure Plan 1994: Policy PE2.
ITEM NUMBER 7

APPLN. NO.:        :PA/01/0166                   6-8 Longford Way, Stanwell
VALID DATE         :22/03/2001
EXPIRY DATE        :17/05/2001                   Erection of a terrace of three dwellings with
CTTEE DATE         :18/07/2001 (AL)              two garages and four parking spaces
                                                 following the demolition of existing pair of
                                                 semi-detached dwellings

                                                 As shown on amended drawing nos.
                                                 MC/AJD/01A, MC/AJD/02A and MC/AJD/10
                                                 received 8th June 2001 for Mr Cliffe.


WARD: Stanwell South

24.       Borough Local Plan

      - Within urban area

25.       Relevant Planning History

2.1   None.

26.       Description of Current Proposals

3.13 The application site is located on the north side of Longford Way and is currently
     occupied by a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings.

3.14 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing pair of semi-detached
     dwellings and the erection of a terrace of 3 two-storey three bedroomed dwellings.
     Both of the end-of-terrace dwellings would have an attached garage and one forecourt
     parking space and the mid-terrace dwelling would have two forecourt parking spaces.
     Vehicular access would be from Longford Way. The terrace would extend the full
     width of the application site although the two storey element would be set back 2.7m
     from the flank boundary. The houses would be set back 1.4m further from the road
     than those adjoining.

27.       Consultations

4.7   Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – certain requirements relating to dropped kerb
      widths and vehicle turning area.

28.       Third Party Representations

5.5   None received.

29.       Issues

      -     Relationship with surrounding properties
      -     Design
      -     Parking
30.    Planning Considerations

7.20   The siting of the proposed dwellings would satisfy the requirements of the Council‟s
       Supplementary Design Guidance for new Residential Development; and would have
       a satisfactory relationship to the existing adjacent dwellings in Longford Way. The
       proposed dwellings would have rear gardens of acceptable sizes and would fit in with
       the character of the locality. There are a variety of house styles within the locality of
       the application site and it is considered that the design of the proposed terrace of
       three dwellings incorporating a traditional pitched roof would be acceptable. The
       provision of two parking/garage spaces for each dwelling would also satisfy the
       requirements of the Council‟s parking standards. It is considered that the application
       site can satisfactorily accommodate a development of three terraced dwellings as
       proposed and the proposals are therefore acceptable.

31.    Recommendation

       GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

       23)    DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)

       24)    COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT – OCCUPIABLE STRUCTURES (C5)

       25)    PARKING MAINTAINED (C13)

       26)    CLOSE BOARDED FENCING (C3) Insert “1.8m”, “northern”, “eastern and
              western behind the front building line”.

       27)    MATERIALS (C34)

       28)    NO WINDOW OPENINGS (C43) Insert “eastern and western side” “terrace of
              3 dwellings”.

       29)    RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT –
              EXTENSIONS AND OUTBUILDINGS (C55)

       REASONS

       21)    R2

       22)    R5

       23)    R13

       24)    R30

       25)    R34

       26)    R43

       27)    To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.
      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

      1.     The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
             regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
             Each is considered relevant to the decision.

             Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies BE1, BE5, BE6, BE11

             Surrey Structure Plan 1994: Policy PE2.

      2.     PARTY WALL ACT

             The applicant‟s attention is drawn to the requirements of the Party Wall Etc.
             Act 1996 in relation to work close to a neighbour‟s building/boundary.

      3.     SOUNDPROOFING OF DWELLINGS: 60-63 Leq

             The site is within the 60-63 Leq contour band which denotes that, to some
             degree, it is affected by aircraft noise attributable to London (Heathrow)
             Airport, and in D.O.E. Circular 10/73, it is recommended that new dwellings be
             constructed to provide a minimum sound attenuation of 20dB. Whilst the
             Council, as Local Planning Authority, do not consider it reasonable to impose
             a condition on the planning permission hereby granted requiring
             soundproofing of the dwelling your attention is, nevertheless, drawn to the
             noise level so that you may, if you wish, undertake sound attenuation
             measures at the construction stage.




ITEM NUMBER 8

APPLN. NO.:     :PA/01/0106                   Land adjacent to 41 Glebeland Gardens,
VALID DATE      :12/03/2001                   Shepperton
EXPIRY DATE     :07/05/2001
CTTEE DATE      :18/07/2001 (EQ)              Erection of 2 no. two-storey terraced houses
                                              following demolition of existing single storey
                                              side extension

                                              As shown on plan nos. 4029-01 to 11
                                              received on 12/02/2001 for Inworth Property
                                              Co. Ltd


WARD: Shepperton Town

32.   Borough Local Plan

1.1   Within existing residential area

33.   Relevant Planning History

2.1   No relevant computer history
34.    Description of Current Proposal

3.1    The application site is situated to the north of 29 and 43 Glebeland Gardens,
       Shepperton. The adjoining land to the south is edged blue on the submitted plan (ie. it
       is within the applicant’s control). This blue edged land is presently occupied by a row
       of six two-storey terraced cottages and is accessed by a private unmade road leading
       off Glebeland Gardens. To the north of the site is the British Red Cross hall with the
       Greeno Centre and recreational grounds lying to the east. Residential properties
       surround the site on the western and southern boundaries.

3.2    Planning permission is sought to erect 2 no. two-storey terraced houses following
       demolition of the existing single storey extension at the side of No. 41 Glebeland
       Gardens. The proposed dwellings would measure 9.1m long x 3.8m wide and would
       provide a living/dining room and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms and a
       bathroom on the first floor. There would be a small single storey projection to the
       rear of each of the properties that would measure 2.1m long x 2.3m wide and would
       accommodate a WC. A garden area would be provided to the front of the proposed
       houses with small sheds located within this area.

3.3    Further information has been requested concerning the additional parking provision
       for the proposal. However no information has been forthcoming to date and the
       proposal is therefore being assessed in its current form.

3.4    The submitted plans also show an alterative position for a bathroom/WC for the
       existing house at No. 41 and this is situated to the rear of the property. However, no
       details of this have been given and it does not form part of this application. It is
       possible that it could be erected as permitted development.




35.    Consultations

4.1 Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – concern raised regarding lack of parking provision
       within area where on-street parking is at a premium.

4.2 Tree Officer – no objections to the proposal.


36.    Third Party Representations

5.1 Five letters of objection received from neighbouring residents raising the following
       issues:-

       -   discrepancies regarding site ownership
       -   right of way would be created across neighbouring gardens that may be used for
           construction traffic
       -   lack of parking provision for scheme
       -   existing parking provision is less than figure quoted by the agent
       -   increase in traffic generation and congestion
       -   additional dwellings would detract from history and appearance of cottages
       -   access for emergency vehicles may be hindered
       -   loss of amenity due to construction
37.     Issues

        -    Parking provision
        -    Design of dwellings

38.     Planning Considerations


7.1 Policy BE1 seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard in terms of
        design and materials and sets out a number of criteria that it should meet. These
        include criterion (a) which states that any new development should respect the scale,
        height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and other characteristics of
        adjoining building and land. The design of the proposed dwellings are in keeping with
        the existing row of cottages and would not be considered to be detrimental to the
        character of the cottages themselves or the surrounding area. Whilst the submitted
        plans do not specifically show amenity space allocated individually to the proposed
        units it is clear adequate space in terms of size and position could be provided to the
        west (front) of the dwellings. This would be in character with that of the adjoining
        terrace. It would therefore comply with Policy BE1.

7.1.1   The Council‟s adopted maximum parking standards for two bedroomed properties is
        1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling. The submitted plans show no detail of vehicular
        access or parking provision for either the proposed or existing dwellings. The
        applicant‟s agent has been requested to provide this on a number of occasions and
        this information to date has not been forthcoming. In these circumstances I am
        unable to make an assessment of the proposed parking arrangements are acceptable
        both in terms of their number and position.

7.3     I now turn to the third party points not dealt with above. The applicant has been
        requested to include the pedestrian and vehicular access, and the parking provision,
        within the application site and serve notice on all those with a legal interest in that
        land. To date the plan has not been amended or notice served. Whilst access for
        construction traffic across a private right of way is not a valid planning issue and
        would not be considered as part of this assessment, there clearly could be difficulties
        throughout the construction period since at present there is no vehicular access in
        front of the adjoining terrace. I have therefore, as a matter of information, requested
        clarification from the applicant as to how it is intended to access the application site
        for construction traffic. To date no response has been received.


39.     Recommendation

        REFUSE, for the following reasons:-

        1.       No details have been provided of vehicular access and parking provision for
                 the proposed houses and how that may effect the provision of parking for the
                 existing adjoining terrace. In these circumstances the Council is not satisfied
                 that the application site can satisfactorily accommodate the provision of the
                 additional houses since the apparent lack of parking provision would lead to an
                 increase in parked vehicles along Glebeland Gardens which would detract from
                 the amenities of that street and prejudice the safe and free flow of pedestrian
                 and vehicular traffic in the vicinity. The proposal would thus be contrary to
                 Policy BE11 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001.
          INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

          1.     The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
                 regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
                 Each is considered relevant to the decision.

                 Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 : BE1, BE11




ITEM NUMBER 9

APPLN. NO.:        :PA/01/0320                    187 Ashford Road, Laleham
VALID DATE         :09/05/2001
EXPIRY DATE        :04/07/2001                    Erection of a two storey side extension,
CTTEE DATE         :18/07/2001 (AL)               installation of new dormer in existing roof and
                                                  erection of single storey side extension to
                                                  form enlarged entrance porch.

                                                  As shown on drawing received 8th May 2001
                                                  for Mr M Mascarenhas

WARD: Laleham

40.       Borough Local Plan

      -        Within Green Belt
      -        Area of Special Advertisement Control
      -        Area Liable to Flood

41.       Relevant Planning History

2.1   None.

42.       Description of Current Proposal

3.15 The application site is located on the west side of Ashford Road, Laleham and is
     occupied by a substantial detached two-storey dwelling. The site is within the Green
     Belt.

3.16 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey side extension
     measuring 4.0m x 7.2m on the southern side of the dwelling, and the installation of
     new dormer with a width of 1.8m within the rear elevation of the existing roof.
     Permission is also sought for the erection of a single storey side extension measuring
     2m x 1.35m on the northern side of the existing dwelling to form an enlarged entrance
     porch. The proposed two storey and single storey side extensions would incorporate
     traditional pitched roofs to match the main dwelling and the size and design of the
     proposed new dormer in the rear elevation of the existing roof would match the three
     existing dormers in the rear of the main roof of the dwelling.

43.       Consultations

4.8   Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – no requirements.

4.9   Environment Agency – no objections.
44.        Third Party Representations

5.6    None received.

45.        Issues

       -         Impact on Green Belt
       -         Relationship with surrounding residential properties
       -         Design

46.        Planning Considerations

7.21       The application site is located within the Green Belt and in paragraph 3.6 of PPG2
           (Green Belts) it states that:-

           “Provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size
           of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in
           Green Belts”.

7.2        There is no planning history of previous extensions. The proposed two-storey in floor
           area of the entrance porch would be some 2.7sq metres. This would represent a
           extension would have a total floor area of some 57sq metres and the proposed
           increase percentage increase in the footprint of the dwelling of 25% and an increase
           in the floorspace of 28%. In my opinion this could not be regarded as being a
           “disproportionate” addition above the size of the original building and the proposal
           would therefore satisfy the requirements of the Council‟s Green Belt policies and
           PPG2 (Green Belts).

7.3 It is considered that the design of the proposals would be acceptable in this Green Belt
         location and would comply with the Council‟s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
         the Design of Residential Extensions.

47.        Recommendation

           GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

           30)      DURATION NON-OUTLINE (C2)

           31)      COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT (C5) Insert “the proposed development”.

           32)      MATERIALS TO MATCH (C36)

           33)      OBSCURED GLAZING (C42) Insert “first”, “southern side”.

           34)      NO FURTHER OPENINGS (C44) Insert “south western side”, “two storey
                    side extension”.

           REASONS

           28)      R2

           29)      R5

           30)      R36

           31)      R42
      32)      R44




      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

      1.       The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
               regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
               Each is considered relevant to the decision.

               Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: Policies BE1, BE5, BE6, GB1, GB2

               Surrey Structure Plan 1994: Policy PE2.




ITEM NUMBER 10

APPLN. NO        :PA/01/0200                    Wayfields, Chertsey Road, Shepperton
VALID DATE       :11/04/2001
EXPIRY DATE      :06/06/2001                    Demolition of existing chalet bungalow and
CTTEE DATE       :18/07/2001 (EQ)               detached double garage, store and workshop
                                                and erection of a new three bedroomed
                                                bungalow and detached double garage with
                                                garden store.

                                                As shown on plan nos.531/01, 531/03 rev A
                                                received on 24/05/2001 and amended plan
                                                531/02 rev C received on 04/07/2001 on
                                                behalf of Mr and Mrs Lee.


WARD :Shepperton Town

48.   Borough Local Plan

      -     within Green Belt
      -     within Area Liable to Flood
      -     within Area of Special Landscape Character


49.   Relevant Planning History

      4527/A      Extension for third bedroom                            Approved
                                                                         28/07/1964
      4527/B      Double garage and porch                                Approved
                                                                         16/06/1965
      4527/C      Room in roof space                                     Approved
                                                                         12/07/1967

50.   Description of Current Proposal

3.1   The application relates to a plot of land on the southern side of Chertsey Road. It is
      presently occupied by a detached bungalow with a double garage alongside. There
      is currently a front dormer in the roof that provides accommodation in the roofspace.
      Both roofs of the buildings have a pitch of 40 degrees. There is a small
      summerhouse to the south of the site. The adjacent property, Meadowview is a two-
      storey property while the adjoining site to the east is a mixture of car repair units.

3.2   It is proposed to demolish the existing structures on the site and erect a new
      bungalow and detached double garage. It would be sited slightly forward to the north
      than the existing buildings. The proposed dwelling would incorporate three bedrooms
      with en-suite bathrooms, kitchen, utility room, study and living room. The detached
      double garage would be located alongside the proposed bungalow. There is no
      reference to any accommodation being provided within the roofspace. The bungalow
      and garage would be constructed with red stock brickwork and clay plain roof tiles.
      The proposed bungalow would be raised up by 1m from ground level to incorporate
      flood openings.



51.   Consultations

4.1   Environment Agency: - objects to the proposal as there would be a direct risk of
      flooding. Conditions have been included if the Local Planning Authority is minded to
      grant planning permission.

4.2   Head of Engineering: - no highway requirements

52.   Third Party Representations

5.1   None received at the time of writing this report

53.   Issues

      -   Green Belt
      -   Area of Special Landscape Character
      -   Impact on adjoining property at Meadowview, Chertsey Road
      -   Area Liable to Flood

54.   Planning Considerations

7.1   PPG2 (Green Belts) sets out what is appropriate and inappropriate development
      within the Green Belt. Spelthorne‟s Local Plan Policies flow from this, and those
      relevant to this proposal are Policies GB1 and GB2 in the Spelthorne Local Plan.
      Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6 of PPG2 are relevant. The former states that “limited
      extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings” may be appropriate subject
      to paragraph 3.6. That paragraph states that:-

               “provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above
               the size of the ORIGINAL (my emphasis) building, the extension or alteration
               of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts. The replacement of existing
               dwellings need not be inappropriate, providing the new dwelling is not
               materially larger than the dwelling it replaces.

               Development plans should make clear the approach Local Planning
               Authorities will take, including the circumstances (if any) under which
               replacement dwellings are acceptable.”

7.2   Policy GB2 of the Borough Local Plan has three criteria against which the rebuilding
      of dwellings in the Green Belt are assessed, and criterion (c) once again states that
      the proposal should not significantly change the scale of the original building
      regardless of the size of the plot. Para 2.4 of the text in the Borough Local Plan
       preceding this policy notes “by original” the Council means the form of the building as
       first constructed and not a replacement which may already be significantly larger.
       The Council will have regard to the full planning history back to 1948 in assessing
       applications.

7.3 In this particular case the “original” bungalow has been extended on several occasions in
        the 1960‟s as set out in Section 2 of this report. However the floorspace and footprint
        of the proposed house and garage would be no greater than the existing as detailed
        below.




                               EXISTING BUILDINGS             PROPOSED
                                                               BUILDING
       1. Footprint            Dwelling:     197.6m2       Dwelling: 219.0m2
                               Garage, store &             Garage: 53.0m2
                               workshop:      76.7m2
                               TOTAL         274.3m2       TOTAL: 272.0m2

       2. Gross Floor Area     Ground floor: 197.6m2                 272.0m2
                               First floor:   35.15m2
                               Garage, store &
                               workshop:      76.7m2
                               TOTAL:        309.45m2

       3. Heights              5.9 (ridge)                      7.2 (ridge)


       In terms of the overall bulk of the proposed bungalow this would be somewhat greater
       than the existing primarily because of the raising of the dwelling above the 1:100
       flood level and the fact that part of the existing dwelling as previously extended has a
       flat roof. This increase in volume of the bungalow is also offset by a reduction in
       volume of the replacement garage. In my opinion the proposal does not conflict with
       the guidance in PPG2 or the Council‟s Green Belt policies.

7.4 The site is within an Area of Special Landscape Character. The special landscape
       character would not be adversely affected by the proposed development, as it would
       not result in a more urban and less open character for the locality due to the fact
       there is no increase in overall floorspace and footprint. Accordingly, it would comply
       with Policy RU2 of the Borough Local Plan.

7.5 With regard to flooding, the Council‟s policy is set out in Policy BE29 of the Borough
       Local Plan and this sets out five criteria for judging the acceptability of proposals.
       The first two criteria relate to the impedance of the flow of floodwater and the
       reduction of the capacity of the flood plain. In this case the proposal would include
       the installation of underfloor voids to allow the passage of floodwater. There is also a
       small reduction in the footprint of the proposed buildings in comparison with the
       existing buildings on site. In these circumstances I do not consider that a refusal
       reason on flooding grounds could be sustained.

7.6 The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring property
       (Meadowview) and in terms of its general design and parking provision the proposal
       would be acceptable.



55.    Recommendation
     GRANT, subject to the following conditions:

     1. DURATION NON-OUTLINE              (C2)

     2. COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT             (C5)

     3. PARKING MAINTAINED                (C12)

     4. MATERIALS                         (C34)

     5. NO IMPEDIMENT TO FLOODWATER                (C77)

     6. NO SPOIL DEPOSITED ON SITE (C79)

     7. RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT – EXTENSIONS
        AND OUTBUILDINGS (C55)


     REASONS:

     1. R2

     2. R5

     3. R12

     4. R34

     5. R77

     6. R79

     7. To safeguard the Council‟s Green Belt and flooding policies.


     INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

     1. The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had regard
        to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is
        considered relevant to the decision.

                           Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001: RU2, GB1, GB2, BE1,
                           BE5, BE6, BE7, BE11, BE29




ITEM NUMBER 11
APPLN. NO.:      :PA/01/0308                     3 Station Approach, Shepperton
VALID DATE       :23/04/2001
EXPIRY DATE      :18/06/2001                     Conversion of part of ground floor, first and
CTTEE DATE       :18/07/2001 (EQ)                second floors to three separate self-contained
                                                 units. Change of use of existing vacant shop
                                                 (A1) to A2 use.

                                                 As shown on amended plan nos. 274-1
                                                 received on 23/04/01 and amended drawing
                                                 no AP/364/2/D received on 04/07/2001 for
                                                 Mr R Warple.


WARD: Shepperton Town

56.    Borough Local Plan

       - Within Shepperton Town Centre shopping and commercial area

57.    Relevant Planning History

2.1    No relevant history.

58.    Description of Current Proposal

3.1 The application site is located within a row of shops on the southeastern side of Station
       Approach directly opposite Shepperton Railway Station. It is occupied by a three-
       storey building, the upper floors are currently being used as one residential unit. The
       ground floor unit was occupied by a newsagents but has been vacant since
       September 2000. To the southeast of the site lies a single storey storage unit that
       would appear to store wooden panels. This unit forms the southeastern boundary
       with the application site.

3.2 It is proposed to convert part of the existing ground floor, first and second floors to three
         separate self-contained units. Initially a change of use of the existing vacant shop to
         either an A2 or D1 use was proposed. However having further discussed this with the
         applicant, he has confirmed the A2 use as the preferred use. No parking provision
         has been provided for this scheme.

3.3 The applicant has also amended the scheme to omit the single storey rear extension and
       changed the ground floor flat to a studio flat. The area to the rear of the proposed
       studio flat would be block paved with some landscaping proposed and a close-
       boarded fence would be erected to separate the rear fire access route for the ground
       floor A2 unit and the proposed amenity area for the studio flat.

59.    Consultations

4.1    Head of Engineering (Consultancy): No objection to the proposal but draws attention
       to the lack of parking proposed for the scheme.

60.    Third Party Representations

       - None received at the time of writing this report.

61.    Issues
       - Loss of a retail use
       - Adequate Amenity space
       - Parking provision

62.    Planning Considerations

7.1 The proposal needs to be assessed against Policy S7 of the Local Plan 2001. It seeks to
       retain retail units within the existing town centre location where changes of use would
       be limited to Classes A2, A3 and a launderette, with restrictions on the number and
       spacing of non-retail units within the street. To fall within Class A2 the services
       provided should be of a financial or professional nature and should principally be to
       visiting members of the public. Currently within Station Approach itself five out of the
       nine units are already in non-retail use. Within the parade of which this unit forms a
       part 2 out of 4 of the units are in non-retail use. The proposed change of use of the
       unit out of retail use would conflict with both of the above criteria (b) and (c) since it
       would result in more than 2 of the units in the parade being in non-retail use and three
       non retail uses being grouped together.

7.2 It is considered that this section of the town centre, although included within the shopping
         area boundary, is physically quite divorced from the High Street in Shepperton due to
         the location of the junction of Laleham Road and Green Lane. This part of the
         shopping area seems to rely on any passing trade from the Station. The applicant
         has confirmed by letter that agents acting on behalf of local charity shops have been
         trying to let the premises since September 2000 without success.

7.3 Taking these points into consideration and the fact that the unit has been vacant since
       September 2000, I can understand that the prospects for attracting new A1 users to
       the site may be difficult. Consequently I am of the opinion that the loss of retail floor
       space would not affect the vitality and viability of Shepperton shopping centre.

7.4    A suitable front window display would be required for the Class A2 use, in line with
       Policy S12 of the Local Plan and this is covered by condition 2 below.

7.5    The scheme has been amended to omit the single storey extension to the rear of the
       property and change the ground floor flat to a studio flat. The proposed amenity
       space provided to the rear of the studio flat would measure 4.3m x 4.7m. The
       applicants have shown a landscaped area that would be blocked paved. Whilst the
       proposed ground floor studio flat would have minimal private amenity space in the
       form of a paved courtyard this would be no worse than the existing flat that has no
       outdoor amenity space. For this type of accommodation in this location I would
       consider this to be acceptable. Whilst the first floor (2 bed) and second floor (1 bed)
       flats have no outdoor amenity space, this is not untypical of flats in this type of
       location. I am satisfied the proposed dwellings would be able to enjoy a reasonable
       standard of amenity.

7.6 Turning to the issue of parking, no new parking spaces will be provided as part of the
       scheme. There is on-street parking available along Station Approach which is
       restricted during the daytime as well as seven spaces at Shepperton Station.
       Although the availability of parking will be restricted during the day it is likely that
       there will be more available in the evening time. It is acknowledged that the existing
       residential accommodation has no parking provision. However due to the close
       proximity of the site to the High Street and the Station I do not believe an objection
       can be raised on parking grounds.



63.    Recommendation
     GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

     1.     DURATION NON-OUTLINE                 (C2)

     2.     COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT – OCCUPIABLE STRUCTURE                         (C5)
            Insert “the proposed development”

     3.     CLASS A2 WINDOW DISPLAY              (C86)

    4. The proposed garden area to the rear of the ground floor studio flat should be
       paved and landscaped in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and
       approved by the Local Planning Authority within a period of one month from the
       date on which development hereby permitted is first commenced, or such longer
       period as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

     5.     FENCING DETAILS REQUIRED (C29)
            insert “southeastern” and “2m”

     REASONS:

     1.     R2

     2.     R5

     3.     To comply with Policy S12 of the Adopted Spelthorne Borough Local Plan
            2001

     4.     To safeguard the amenity of the ground floor studio flat

     5.     R29

     INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

     1.     The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
            regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
            Each is considered relevant to the decision.

            Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 : BE1, BE5, BE6, BE7, BE11, S7




ITEM NUMBER 12
APPLN. NO.:       :PA/01/0309                     Units 4 and 6 Fairfield Avenue, Staines
VALID DATE        :02/05/2001
EXPIRY DATE       :27/06/2001                     Continued use as Class A1 (Retail) for a
CTTEE DATE        :18/07/2001 (EJS)               temporary period of 5 years.

                                                  As shown on plan received 02/05/2001 for
                                                  Tidegrove Ltd.


WARD: Staines East

64.    Borough Local Plan

       -   Commercial Area
       -   Secondary Shopping Area
       -   Area Liable to Flood
       -   Archaeological Site (part)

65.    Relevant Planning History

2.3    The following planning applications relate specifically to this site:-

       PA/91/0633                Change of use to retail for a temporary        Approved
                                       period of 5 years.                       08/01/1992

       PA/95/0593                Continued use as Class A1 (Retail) for a       Approved
                                        temporary period of 5 years.            24/04/1996


2.4   In addition, the Council has received in recent years a number of applications which
      involve the redevelopment and/or alterations involving this site and/or surrounding
      land. The most relevant are:-

       PA/98/0478                Former Postal Sorting Office, Fairfield        Approved
                                 Avenue. Demolition of existing building        22/05/1998,
                                 and erection of a 5 storey office block        subject to a legal
                                 comprising 3210 sqm with associated            agreement.
                                 car parking and landscaping.

       PA/00/0302                Redevelopment of site with a total of          Approved
                                 19447 sqm floorspace, comprising               03/01/2001
                                 16573 sqm Class B1 (Offices), 1650             subject to a legal
                                 sqm Classes A1 (Retial) and/or A2              agreement (not
                                 (Financial and Professional Services)          yet completed).
                                 and/or A3 (Food and Drink), 1224 sqm
                                 residential together with 427 car parking
                                 spaces at basement levels and surface
                                 level and provision of service areas and
                                 new Link Road from Fairfield Avenue to
                                 Mill Mead, following demolition of
                                 existing buildings. (Outline application).




       PA/01/0316                Majestic House, 122-140 (incl) High            Not yet
                                  Street , 2-12 Fairfield Avenue, and Land     determined.
                                  fronting Mill Mead, Staines, Middlesex.

                                  Redevelop site with 29,667 sqm
                                  floorspace, comprising 27,775 sqm class
                                  B1 (office), 940 sqm classes A1 (Retail)
                                  and/or A2 (Financial & Professional
                                  Services) and/or Class A3 (Food and
                                  Drink), 952 sqm residential within 16 one
                                  bedroom flats, 592 car parking spaces at
                                  surface and basement levels and new
                                  link road from Fairfield Avenue to
                                  Millmead, following demolition of existing
                                  buildings.

66.      Description of Current Proposals

3.17 The application site relates to the former Post Office Sorting Office located on the
     western side of Fairfield Avenue. The site is currently in retail use selling carpets. An
     area of car parking exists to the front.

3.18 The current application seeks to renew PA/95/0593 to enable the current retail use to
     continue for a further period of 5 years.

67.      Consultations

4.10 Head of Engineering Services (Consultancy) – makes no coment.

68.      Third Party Representations

5.7     No representations have been received.

69.      Issues

      - - Principle of development
      - - Car Parking

70.      Planning Considerations

7.22 The site lies within the Commercial Area and Secondary Shopping Area of Staines and
     the use of the premises for retail purposes is acceptable in principle. The previous
     applications 91/0633 and 95/0593 were both granted temporary consent for a 5 year
     period. The reason for this was because the proposal fell considerably short of the
     Council‟s parking standards for retail development. However, as the site is within the
     Secondary Shopping Area of Staines, it was considered that customers may visit the
     premises as part of an overall shopping trip, having parked in one of the public car
     parks.

7.23 I am not aware that any parking problems have occurred as a result of the retail use.
     The applicant has stated that the application is only for a temporary period of 5 years
     as it is the applicant‟s intention to redevelop this site as part of a pending
     redevelopment of a wider site that includes Majestic House. Whilst the application is
     for 5 years, it is the applicant‟s intention to undertake this comprehensive
     redevelopment in approximately 2-3 years time.


7.24     In view of the above, it is considered that permission should be granted for a further
         temporary period of 5 years.
71.    Recommendation

       GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

       35)    LIMITED PERMISSION BUILDING(S) AND USE (C7) Insert “5 years”, “31st
              July 2006”.

       36)    The existing area of hardstanding within the curtilage of the application site
              fronting Fairfield Avenue shall be used for the parking, turning, loading and
              unloading of vehicles clear of the highway and shall be maintained free of any
              impediment to its designated use.

       REASONS

       33)    To comply with the terms of the application.

       34)    HR1




ITEM NUMBER 13

APPLN. NO.:      :PA/01/0327                    24 Wood Road, Shepperton.
VALID DATE       :15/05/2001
EXPIRY DATE      :10/07/2001                    Erection of detached bungalow for use by an
CTTEE DATE       :18/07/2001 (DC)               elderly relative at rear of existing dwelling

                                                As shown on plan nos.00/1377/02 & 03 for
                                                C. Gunner


WARD :Shepperton Green

      Councillor Burrell has requested that this application be referred to the Committee if
      the application was to be approved. Whilst I am recommending refusal, I have decided
      to refer it to the Committee in view of the sensitivity of the proposal.

72.    Borough Local Plan

      -within urban area.

73.    Relevant Planning History

      E/89/901        Erection of single storey rear extension.    Approved 06.03.90

74.    Description of Current Proposal

      3.1                    The application relates to a semi-detached house with a rear
                             garden, which has a depth of 30 metres. The house has been
                             previously extended with an attached garage at the side of the
                             property (permitted development) and a rear extension. The
                                neighbouring properties in Burbidge Road to the rear of a
                                footpath, which forms the rear boundary of the site, have rear
                                gardens with a depth of between 5 and 8 metres. The rear
                                garden is well screened from No. 22 Wood Road with a 3.0
                                metre high hedge (with a 1.4metre high fence), with a low fence
                                to a height of 1.2 metres to the boundary with No. 26 Wood
                                Road and a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence to the
                                boundary with the footpath access to the nearby residential
                                properties in Burbidge Road. There is more substantial
                                screening (such as 4-5 metre high conifer screens) between
                                the residential properties of Burbidge Road from adjoining and
                                nearby Wood Road residential properties.

3.2     The proposal is to erect a one bedroom self-contained bungalow at the bottom of the
        plot for an elderly relative in declining health. The proposed bungalow would have a
        depth of 7.9 metres and a width of 6.8 metres. The proposed bungalow would be a
        ridged roof building, with the ridge running parallel with the flank boundaries of the site.
        The proposed bungalow would have a height of 2.7 metres at the eaves rising to 4.1
        metres at the ridge. The gable end of the proposed bungalow would face the
        residential properties in Burbidge Road.

3.3 There would be no separate vehicular access or parking area provided with this proposal
      distinct from those for the residents of the existing house at 24 Wood Road. There are
      two existing parking spaces and a garage space all in tandem within the site. The
      future occupier(s) of the proposed bungalow would share the existing facilities with the
      residents of 24 Wood Road at the front of the site. The only pedestrian access would
      be through the residential dwellinghouse of 24 Wood Road.

3.4     There is an old garage to a maximum height of 2.2 metres and a shed to a maximum
        height of 2.0 metres at the bottom of the garden.

4     Consultations

        Head of Engineering (Consultancy) – no objection.

5     Third Party Representations

5.1     Eleven letters (including two from the same neighbour) from the occupiers of
        properties within Burbidge Road raising the following concerns:-

        -    Loss of light to the rear gardens and windows in rear walls of the properties in
             Burbidge Road
        -    Loss of visual amenity due to appearance, height and massing of development
        -   future use of the bungalow (when it ceases to be used by the elderly relative)
        -   Extra noise/disturbance/pollution from this proposal
        -    Devaluation of properties (Not a planning matter)
        -   Scope of alternative development, which would have less impact (i.e. extensions to
              existing house).

5.2     One letter of objection from an occupier of a property in Wood Road raising the
        following concerns:-

        -    Loss of privacy due to low fence at boundary and windows which face into their
             garden.


6     Issues
      -   The principle of erecting a dwelling in the rear garden and the relationship with
          adjoining residential properties
      -   Loss of light and privacy to adjoining residential properties.
      -   Type of accommodation

7   Planning Considerations

7.1 The main issues regarding this planning application is the impact of the proposed
      development on the adjoining and nearby residential properties, the amenities
      provided by the proposed development and the future use of the proposed
      development when it is no longer required for the elderly relative. In the location
      shown in the application, by virtue of being located immediately to the rear of the
      frontage property, represents what is often referred to as “backland” or “tandem”
      development. There is usually an objection in principle to this form of development for
      many of the reasons explained below.

7.2 The applicant states that the proposed bungalow would be for an elderly relative. Policy
      BE12 of the Borough Local Plan requires accommodation for an elderly relative to be
      capable of being included as part of the main dwellinghouse and should not be self-
      contained. It would fail to meet the requirements of Policy BE12 by providing annexe
      accommodation which is self contained and not physically linked (i.e. does not form an
      extension) to the original dwellinghouse.

7.3 Whilst an outbuilding of this size (with a slight reduction in the maximum height to 4
     metres or below) could be located in the same position and be permitted development
     if it remained ancillary to and with a use incidental to the enjoyment of the
     dwellinghouse (such as a summer house), the provision of a separate dwelling in this
     location requires planning permission. Clearly the use of the building as a dwelling
     would be far more intensive than if it were used as an outbuilding “incidental to the
     enjoyment” of the dwelling. The size and height of the bungalow would have an
     overbearing and un-neighbourly relationship with residential properties in Burbidge
     Road, exacerbated by the short rear gardens of these properties and close proximity of
     the proposed bungalow with the rear windows of these properties. The windows in the
     flank elevation of the proposed bungalow would look out onto the rear garden of a
     neighbour‟s property, 26 Wood Road. The windows include the sole window for the
     bedroom. This room needs to have a window with clear glass, and an outlook to make
     it suitable for this type of accommodation. However, this would lead to a loss of privacy
     to the residents of the adjoining property and therefore fail to meet the requirements of
     Policy BE5. The use of the bungalow would also increase the noise and disturbance to
     the rear part of the garden to the detriment of the residents of adjoining residential
     properties.

7.4 If this proposed bungalow was not provided for a family member, it would not meet the
        requirements for new dwellings under Policy BE11.The provision of a separate
        vehicular access which is not within close proximity to the bungalow and with a
        pedestrian access to the proposed bungalow through the existing house and rear
        garden is unsatisfactory, and would fail to meet the requirements of BE11(d). The rear
        amenity would also be shared between the occupiers of the new bungalow and the
        existing house, which is an unsatisfactory arrangement.

7.5 Whilst having sympathy with the applicant‟s needs, the proposal represents an
     unacceptable form of development in planning terms for the reasons which have been
     set out above.



8   Recommendation
      REFUSE with the following reason:

      1.    The proposed bungalow, whilst initially intended for use as accommodation for
            an elderly relative amounts to the erection of a separate dwelling in the rear
            garden of the application property. It would by reason of its size and location
            have a poor relationship with adjoining properties and would result in a
            significant loss of amenities to them in terms of loss of privacy and having an
            overbearing effect. The dwelling also lacks access and adequate parking
            provision, which would result in on street parking on Wood Road to the detriment
            of visual amenities and prejudicial to the safe and free flow of pedestrian and
            vehicular traffic. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1, BE5,
            BE11 and BE12 of the Adopted Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001.

      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

      1.    The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
            regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each
            is considered relevant to the decision.

            Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001      : Policies BE1, BE5, BE11, BE12.




ITEM NUMBER 14

APPLN. NO.:      :PA/01/0329                    25 The Wickets, Ashford, Middlesex
VALID DATE       :17/05/2001
EXPIRY DATE      :12/07/2001                    Erection of a single storey front extension
CTTEE DATE        :18/07/2001 (KG)

                                                As shown on plans received on 17/05/2001
                                                for Mr and Mrs Middleton


WARD : Ashford West

Councillor Forsbury has requested that this application be referred to Committee for decision.

75.   Borough Local Plan

      - Within existing residential area
      - Protected urban open space

76.   Relevant Planning History

2.1   No relevant history.

77.   Description of Current Proposal

3.1 The application site is situated in the south eastern corner of The Wickets development.
      It is occupied by a two storey detached dwelling. Residential properties surround the
      dwelling.
3.2 Planning permission is sought to construct a single storey extension to the front of the
      dwelling. The extension comprises a breakfast area and new entrance porch. The
      breakfast area extends towards the frontage for a distance of 1.8 metres and the
      entrance porch extends 1.2 metres. The extension is 3.5 metres wide. The roof is
      proposed to be pitched to match the garage. It is also proposed to have a window in
      the front elevation and the northern side elevation. A copy of the plans are attached as
      an Appendix.

78.   Consultations

4.1   Council Highway Engineers (Consultancy) – no highway requirements

79.   Third Party Representations

5.1   None received.

80.   Issues

      - Effect on the character of the dwellings on the development.

81.   Planning Considerations

7.1 This application is a relatively minor proposal. The extension will not protrude forward of
      the existing garage or the garage of the adjoining dwelling to the north. The style of the
      pitched roof over the breakfast area matches the
      existing garage and is therefore considered to be in character with the whole of the
      development and not detrimental to the streetscape. There will also be no loss of
      parking and no third party letters have been received in connection with the application.

82.   Recommendation

      GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

      1.       Duration Non-Outline (C2)

      2.       Completed Development – Occupiable Structures (C5)
               Insert “proposed development”

      3.       Materials to match (C36)


      REASONS

      1.       R2

      2.       R5

      3.       R36




      INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT
       1.      The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had
               regard to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan.
               Each is considered relevant to the decision.

               Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 : BE1




ITEM NUMBER 15

MISCELLANEOUS ITEM

APPLN. NO.:       :PA/00/0797                    Staines Prep School, 1-5 Gresham Road,
VALID DATE        :03/11/2000                    Staines
EXPIRY DATE       :29/12/2000
CTTEE DATE        :18/07/2001 (PU)               Erection of single/two storey building to
                                                 provide classrooms and sports hall, erection
                                                 of single storey storage building. Alterations
                                                 to existing hard an soft play areas.

                                                 As shown on plans nos. 02A, 03A, 04A, 05A,
                                                 06A and 07A for the Broad of Staines
                                                 Preparatory School Trust.


  1.        The above application was reported to the Committee at its meeting on 28th
            February 2001. A copy of the report is attached as an Appendix. Members will
            note that it was recommended to grant permission subject to a legal agreement to
            secure:-

  -     To withdraw planning application PA/99/0445 and to revoke planning permission
        PA/99/0541 without recourse for compensation.

  -     That a School Transport Plan be submitted in the event that pupil numbers at the
        school are increased above the present level of 400 pupils.

  The Committee resolved to grant permission as set out in the recommendation but with
  an additional clause being inserted within the legal agreement as a result of the
  Committee‟s debate on the application, requiring that the school numbers do not exceed
  400 pupils.

  2.        A draft legal agreement has been prepared accordingly and the decision, since it
            is dependant on the completion of the legal agreement, has yet to be issued. The
            applicant‟s solicitors have, however, now queried the restriction to 400 pupils and
            state that the total number of pupils at the school is actually 444 and the draft
            agreement should be amended to that figure.

  3.        The figure of 400 was set out in my recommendation in section 8.0 of the report in
            relation to the submission of a School Transport Plan in the event pupil numbers
            are increased above the present level. The case officer no longer works for the
            Council and looking at the file I can only assume that the figure was taken by the
            case officer from a statement submitted by the Headmaster of the school in a
                letter dated 7th December 2000. In that statement it reads “The School presently
                has an enrolment of approximately four hundred pupils with approximately 60%
                living within the Borough of Spelthorne”.

       4.       I have no reason to doubt that the present number of pupils at the school is 440
                and that the Headmaster‟s original statement was not intended to be misleading.
                The Committee resolution seeks to restrict pupil numbers to their present level
                and to require the submission of a School Transport Plan if pupil numbers
                increase above that level. If the actual figure is more accurately 440 I can see no
                objection to the legal agreement being worded accordingly. If the numbers of
                pupils are restricted to that level there is no longer a need for the submission of a
                School Transport Plan, since it was only required to be submitted in the event that
                pupil numbers increased.

       5.       The proposed development remains as previously reported and this alteration
                does not affect it in any way.

       6.       Recommendation

                That the legal agreement to be completed in association with the granting of
                planning permission PA/00/0797 be varied to secure:-

                a)      The withdrawal of planning permission PA/99/0445 and revocation of
                          planning permission PA/99/0541 without recourse for compensation.

                b)      That the number of pupils at the school do not exceed 440.




 ITEM NUMBER 16

 ENFORCEMENT ACTION

 APPLN. NO.:            ENF/01/0005                   Location: Andy‟s Stores, and garage to the .
 CTTEE DATE            :18/07/2001 (GB)               rear of 81 Garrick Close.

                                                      Alleged breach of control: Commercial use of
                                                      two garages including one for the storage
                                                      and distribution of alcohol.

 WARD : Staines Town

 83.         Background

1.1         The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the investigation that my Planning
            Enforcement Officer is presently carrying out, following receipt of a complaint from a
            local resident. The resident has also expressed concern that the Council is not
            pursuing the matter by immediately taking enforcement action, and has indicated she
            intends to complain to the local ombudsman.

 84.         Relevant Planning History
2.1    P8274/2      Construction of a new road and erection               Approved 13.2.68
                    of shops, flats and houses.

2.2    The permission (which relates to the entire Garrick Close Development) was granted
       subject to the following condition:
      “One garage or space for a garage shall be provided within the curtilage of the site for
       each residential unit to the satisfaction of and in accordance with details to be
       submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is
       commenced and thereafter such garages or spaces shall be maintained to the
       satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority”

2.3   The reason for this condition was “to ensure that the proposed development does not
      prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the
      neighbouring highways”

2.4   SP/90/0037          Development at 63 Wheatsheaf Lane, one of the other
                          shops of Garrick Close, fronting onto Wheatsheaf Lane.

                          a) Conversion of existing integral garage at rear
                              to form enlarged shop and pharmacy
                          b) installation of two windows and re-location of
                             existing doorway in rear elevation
                          c) provision of one replacement parking space       Approved 2.5.90

2.5   1998/0183/COM       Following 10 complaints from residents of Garrick Close, a Planning
                         Contravention Notice was served on 12 August 1998 on Global
                         Transport Training Services at the shop of 81 Garrick Close
                         regarding a change of use from Use Class A1 to Use Class A2. This
                         was completed and returned on 1 September 1998 stating their
                         intention of submitting a planning application. This was never
                         submitted and the shop is now rented by a company called China
                         Etc, trading in china products and antiques. At present this shop is
                         used as their office for internet, e-mail and telephone orders, and no
                         stock is kept on the premises. This appears to result in a material
                         change of use that requires planning permission and is the subject
                         of a separate investigation.

3.    Description of Alleged Unauthorised Development and Action Taken to Date

3.1   The site is located on the south side of Wheatsheaf Lane, Staines, to the west of its
      junction with Penton Hook Road. It is situated in a predominantly residential area and
      consists of a general grocery shop and off-licence. It is one of a group of shops
      fronting Wheatsheaf Lane. As well as the main residential part of Garrick Close to the
      rear, there are maisonettes above the shops, there are garages to the rear of the
      shops and maisonettes.

3.2    A complaint was received on 6 April 2000 in respect of the use of the integral garage
      at the rear of 81 Garrick Close (Garage A) by Mr Rajiv Vedi, the Proprietor of Andy‟s
      Stores, and a Planning Contravention Notice was served on 10 July 2000. There is no
      record of this document being completed and returned, and on 25 August 2000
      another Notice was served on Mr Vedi. This was completed and returned dated 13
      September 2000.

3.3   These enquiries revealed that the said garage had been used for the storage of boxes,
      crates and barrels of alcohol for about 18 months and was used rent free with the
      permission of the owner. About half appeared to be storage for Andy‟ Stores itself, and
      the remainder, particularly the barrels, appeared to be temporarily stored in the garage
      before being transported elsewhere. This in effect appeared to be a separate
      wholesale business, although the scale of the operation was not conclusive on this
      issue, and the situation was logged to be periodically inspected.

3.4   The County Fire Officer was contacted because concern had been raised by the
      complainant that the alcohol represented a fire hazard, and he expressed no objection
      to the products stored in the garage.

3.5   In May 2001, the Council received complaints about the use of a second separate
      garage (referred as Garage B) for storage and on 17 May 2001 Mr G Beckford the
      present Planning Enforcement Officer attended at Andy‟s Stores where Mr Vedi
      showed him both garages. The one belonging to the shop (Garage B) was full of shop
      stock relating directly to Andy‟s stores, and the second, (Garage A) contained both
      shop stock and wholesale alcohol in about equal proportions. This was the case in the
      initial investigation, as explained in paragraph 3.3 above.

3.6   Mr Vedi stated that he had used both garages for about two years, and that he was
      under the impression that the matter had been resolved the previous year. He also
      stated that the previous Enforcement Officer was aware of the shop garage (Garage B)
      during his investigation, but that he was only ever questioned regarding the garage (A)
      of Number 81 Garrick Close.

3.7   On 4 June 2001 a Planning Contravention Notice was served on Mr Vedi in relation to
      the garage of Andy‟s Stores (Garage B). To date this has not been returned and the
      deadline expired on 25 June 2001.


4     Planning Considerations

4.1   Planning permission is required for the use of a domestic garage for commercial
      purposes if it either results in a breach of the conditions of the original permission or if
      it is considered that it results in a material change of use of the „planning unit‟.

4.2   Whilst the approved plans in 1968 for the shops/maisonettes shows garages to the
      rear of the shops, it is not totally clear if these were intended for the use of the
      maisonettes or the shops. This ambiguity makes it difficult for the Council to argue in a
      Court of Law that the garages should only be used for domestic purposes.

4.3   The use of the garages for storage connected with the shop is not untypical for
      garages within the curtilage of shops, and the Council would not have a strong case if
      it tried to argue that the Condition of the 1968 Permission was being infringed.

4.4   It is also necessary to consider if a separate material change of use has occurred in
      any event. If the integral garage at the rear of 81 Garrick Close is regarded as part of
      the planning unit of the shop to the front, permission would not be required for it to be
      used for retail purposes or for storage or other purposes ancillary to the shop. The
      situation is complicated however by the fact that the present use of the shop at 81
      Garrick Close as what appears to be an office is unauthorised.

4.5   The partial use of Garage A for the storage and distribution of alcohol is not related to
      the shop unit at 81 Garrick Close and does not appear to be ancillary to Andy‟s Stores.
      In other words it appears to be operating as a separate business. However only about
      half of the garage is used for this purpose.

4.6   The applicant has taken professional advice and has been advised that permission for
      the uses is not required and has thus declined to submit a retrospective application.
 4.7   At the present time, I am not satisfied that the nature of the use or the level of activity
       requires planning permission. It is also not clear that it is not immune from enforcement
       action because of the length of time the garage has been used for storage purposes.
       Even if it was considered that planning permission was required, it would be necessary
       to consider if it was „expedient‟ to take enforcement action.

 4.8   In considering what action to take the Council should have regard to the Government‟s
       advice on taking enforcement action against small businesses. This is set out in PPG
       18 entitled “Enforcement Planning Control” and states (if a breach of planning control
       has occurred):-

       “ The initial aim should be to explore – in discussion with the owner or operator –
       whether the business can be allowed to continue operating acceptably on the site at its
       current level of activity, or perhaps less intensely. The LPA should carefully explain the
       planning objections to the current operation of the business and, if it is practicable,
       suggest ways to overcome them”

       and

       “it will generally be regarded as “unreasonable” for the LPA to issue an enforcement
       notice, solely to remedy the absence of a valid planning permission, if it is concluded,
       on an enforcement appeal to the Secretary of State, that there is no significant
       planning objection to the breach of control alleged in the enforcement notice.
       Accordingly, LPAs who issue a notice in these circumstances will remain at risk of an
       award against them of the appellant‟s costs in the enforcement appeal.”


4.9 I consider it is reasonable to place Andy‟s Stores in the category of a „small business‟,
       and the Council is (and has been) following the advice in PPG 18 and seeking to
       resolve the issues of concern to the residents. This is particularly important at this site
       because the Council‟s case for enforcement action is generally not felt to be strong.
       The main concern of the complainant appears to be the appearance of the service
       yard at the rear of the shops and the occasional external storage of casks. The
       delivery of these to Garage A appears to occur early in the morning, with
       consequential high levels of noise/disturbance.

4.10   Service areas at the rear of shops are seldom particularly attractive places and the
       unloading and loading of vehicles will inevitably have some impact on the neighbouring
       properties. The Council has no control over delivery times to the shops because no
       planning conditions were ever imposed at the time of development. Mr Vedi was
       however contacted and requested to restrict his deliveries to normal working hours and
       to attend to the removal of waste materials from the service yard at the rear of his
       shop.

4.11   If the Council were to take Enforcement action it would need to be able to demonstrate
       that the use that it sought to stop was unacceptable and be able to demonstrate the
       harm resulting to occupiers of neighbouring properties. In this regard it is relevant to
       note that there is only one complainant. This would not assist the Council‟s case in
       demonstrating the extent of harm to neighbouring properties.

 4.12 At the present time I am not satisfied that what is occurring on this site requires
      permission. I intend to discuss this further with the Council‟s Principal Solicitor. If it is
      however concluded that permission is required I do not consider the Council has at the
      present time the evidence to demonstrate the harm that is caused by the uses and the
      „expediency‟ of taking Enforcement action. I will report back to the Committee when
      these matters become clearer. I recognise that the complainant will undoubtedly be
      unhappy with the outcome of these enquiries and may decide to proceed with a
      complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the
      Council is not able to prove conclusively that a breach of planning control has or is
      occurring at present and consider therefore that it would be unsound to proceed on a
      formal basis at this stage. Insofar as the complaint to the Ombudsman is concerned, I
      am satisfied that my enforcement files show the matter has been appropriately
      investigated since the original complaint was received and correct professional
      judgement has been exercised. Furthermore, action was considered whether to serve
      a S215 Notice to improve the tidiness of the external storage/yard area. Members are
      advised however that since this action was originally muted, the general tidiness has
      improved. Nevertheless, this issue will also be kept under review.

5     Recommendation

5.1   That Members resolve to agree that at the present time it is not „expedient‟ to serve an
      Enforcement Notice but confirm that a report should be submitted to a future meeting
      of the Planning Committee following further investigations that will include the alleged
      change of use to an office (from a shop) at 81 Garrick Close.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:20
posted:7/25/2011
language:English
pages:46