Get documents about "ITEM NUMBER
Document Sample
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would be rescinded, if and when the redevelopment scheme proceeds.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.
