Please reply to: Contact: Sam Nicholls Service: Corporate Governance Direct line: 01784 446240 E-mail: [email protected] Date: 18 August 2015
Notice of meeting
Planning Committee
Date: Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Time: Call Over Meeting - 6.45 pm
The Call Over meeting will deal with administrative matters for the Planning Committee meeting. Please see guidance note on reverse
Committee meeting – Immediately upon the conclusion of the call over Meeting
Place: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Knowle Green, Staines-upon-Thames
To the member of the Planning Committee
Councillors:
R.A. Smith-Ainsley (Chairman) Q.R. Edgington A. Neale C.M. Frazer (Vice-Chairman) A.L. Griffiths D. Patel R.O. Barratt N. Islam O. Rybinski I.J. Beardsmore A.T. Jones R.W. Sider BEM S.J. Burkmar V.J. Leighton H.A. Thomson
Spelthorne Borough Council, Council Offices, Knowle Green
Staines-upon-Thames TW18 1XB www.spelthorne.gov.uk [email protected] Telephone 01784 451499
Call Over Meeting
Guidance Note The Council will organise a meeting immediately prior to the Planning Committee meeting (a “Call Over”) which will deal with the following administrative matters for the Committee:
Ward councillor speaking Public speakers Declarations of interests Late information Withdrawals Changes of condition any other procedural issues which in the opinion of the Chairman ought to be dealt with in advance of the meeting.
The Call-Over will be organised by Officers who will be present. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the meeting will be held in the same room planned for the Committee. The Chairman of the Planning Committee will preside at the Call-Over. The Call-Over will take place in public and Officers will advise the public of the proceedings at the meeting. Public speaking at the Call-Over either in answer to the Chairman’s questions or otherwise will be at the sole discretion of the Chairman and his ruling on all administrative matters for the Committee will be final.
Councillors should not seek to discuss the merits of a planning application or any other material aspect of an application during the Call-Over.
Planning Committee meeting
Start times of agenda items It is impossible to predict the start and finish time of any particular item on the agenda. It may happen on occasion that the Chairman will use his discretion to re-arrange the running order of the agenda, depending on the level of public interest on an item or the amount of public speaking that may need to take place. This may mean that someone arranging to arrive later in order to only hear an item towards the middle or the end of the agenda, may miss that item altogether because it has been "brought forward" by the Chairman, or because the preceding items have been dealt with more speedily than anticipated. Therefore, if you are anxious to make certain that you hear any particular item being debated by the Planning Committee, it is recommended that you arrange to attend from the start of the meeting.
Background Papers For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following documents are to be regarded as standard background papers in relation to all items: Letters of representation from third parties Consultation replies from outside bodies Letters or statements from or on behalf of the applicant
AGENDA
Page nos.
1. Apologies To receive any apologies for non-attendance.
2. Minutes 1 - 18 To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2015 (copy attached).
3. Disclosures of Interest To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, or contact with applicants/objectors under the Planning Code.
4. Planning Applications and other Development Control matters To consider and determine the planning applications and other development control matters in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy (copy attached). a) 15/00511/HOU Satsun Park Road Shepperton TW17 9LL 19 - 32 b) 15/00098/PLNCON 22 Thames Meadow, Shepperton TW17 8LT 33 - 42 c) 15/00128/PLNCON Beulah, Penny Lane, Riverside, Shepperton TW17 43 - 54 8NF
5. Standard Appeals Report 55 - 62 To note the details of the Standard Appeals Report.
6. Urgent Items To consider any items which the Chairman considers as urgent.
Minutes of the Planning Committee 29 July 2015
Present: Councillor R.A. Smith-Ainsley (Chairman) Councillor C.M. Frazer (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors:
R.O. Barratt N. Islam R.W. Sider BEM I.J. Beardsmore V.J. Leighton H.A. Thomson S.J. Burkmar A. Neale A.L. Griffiths O. Rybinski
Apologies: Apologies were received from Councillor Q.R. Edgington, Councillor A.T. Jones and Councillor D. Patel
In Attendance: Councillors who are not members of the Committee, but attended the meeting and spoke on an application in or affecting their ward, are set out below in relation to the relevant application.
Councillor N. Gething 15/00718/HOU - 21 Chesterfield Road, Ashford, TW15 2NE
202/15 Minutes
The minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2015 were approved as a correct record subject to:
1) The clarification for minute number 168/15 15/00592/FUL - 133-135 Windmill Road, Sunbury on Thames that the application was approved as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy subject to condition 5 being removed from the substantive motion and the inclusion of additional conditions and amendments to conditions as follows:
That condition 3 be deleted and condition 2 amended as follows:
Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
laid out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority for vehicles to park and turn. Thereafter the parking and turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.
Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and policies CC2 and CC3 of Spelthorne Borough Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document February 2009
That Condition 9 be amended to read as follows:
Prior to the development being brought into use, details of the pathway, to include its precise location and specification from the car park to the main entrance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and completed in accordance with the agreed details. The details shall ensure that the pathway is free from any pedestrian obstructions or impediments.
Reason: To safeguard the users of the facility.
2) The inclusion of Councillor Q.R. Edgington as being in attendance at the meeting.
203/15 Disclosures of Interest a) Disclosures of interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct
There were none. b) Declarations of interest under the Council’s Planning Code
Councillors C.M. Frazer, R.O. Barratt, V.J. Leighton, A. Neale, O. Rybinski, R.W. Sider BEM and H.A. Thomson reported that they had received correspondence in relation to applications 14/01882/FUL – Jewsons Builders Merchant, Moor Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4YN, 15/00718/HOU – 21 Chesterfield Road, Ashford, TW15 2NE and 15/00364/HOU – 108 The Avenue, Sunbury on Thames, TW16 5EX, but had maintained an impartial role and had not expressed any views.
Councillor A.L. Griffiths reported that she had received correspondence in relation to applications 14/01882/FUL – Jewsons Builders Merchant, Moor Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4YN and 15/00364/HOU – 108 The Avenue, Sunbury on Thames, TW16 5EX, but had maintained an impartial role and had not expressed any views.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Councillor N. Islam reported that he had received correspondence in relation to application 15/00364/HOU – 108 The Avenue, Sunbury on Thames, TW16 5EX, but had maintained an impartial role and had not expressed any views.
Councillor R.A. Smith Ainsley reported that he had received correspondence in relation to applications 14/01882/FUL – Jewsons Builders Merchant, Moor Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4YN, 15/00718/HOU – 21 Chesterfield Road, Ashford, TW15 2NE, 15/00364/HOU – 108 The Avenue, Sunbury on Thames, TW16 5EX, and 15/00863/HOU - 47 Queensway, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6HA but had maintained an impartial role and had not expressed any views.
204/15 14/01882/FUL - Jewsons Builders Merchant, Moor Lane, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 36 residential units comprising 25 houses (7 no. 2-bed, 8 no. 3-bed and 10 no. 4- bed) and 11 flats (3 no. 1-bed and 8 no. 2-bed), together with associated accesses, car parking, amenity space and landscaping.
As shown on plan nos. FNH392/P/301, FNH392/P/340 Rev A, FNH392/P/330 Rev A FNH392/P/302 Rev B, FNH392 LS/0, FNH392/P/310 Rev B, FNH392/P/303 Rev B, FNH392/P/311 Rev B, FNH392/P/312 Rev B, FNH392/P/313 Rev B, FNH392/P/314 Rev B, FNH392/P/315 Rev B, FNH392/P/316 Rev B, FNH392/P/317Rev B.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning advised the committee that additional correspondence had been received from two properties.
The first letter raised a flooding objection and claimed that the application site was a ‘dry island’ and would be surrounded by flood water in a 1:100 year event. It stated that this was supported by the Environment Agency’s (EA) flood mapping and that a member of the EA staff supported this claim. The Assistant Head of Planning clarified that this was not the case officer who dealt with this application. She explained that the site was not on a literal dry island as it was connected by a dry route in a 1:100 year flood event to a point outside the flood plain which was agreed by the EA.
The second correspondence was written on behalf of nos. 28-31 Moor Lane inclusive (to the east of the application site) and related to the impact of the proposed houses on those properties. Many of the issues raised had already been covered in either the original March report or the updated report. The points raised were:
The proposals would not meet the minimum separation distances in the SPD Excessive density
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Overbearing / over-dominant impact (plots 12 and 13) Poor outlook Concern that plot 13 is 3 storey not 2 storey There is not a difference of 1m between the application site and the objectors’ properties in Wraysbury Gardens. Comments that the new buildings are to the south of the existing property which will result in the loss of light (officer note: the new buildings are to the west of the property not the south as claimed by the objectors) Sunlight is below the BRE guidance of less than 50% garden not in sunlight for at least 2 hours of the day. The Assistant Head of Planning noted that this was not the case. The assessment ignored the existing fences. The Assistant Head of Planning informed the Committee that the report did not ignore the existing fences. Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Alan Newton spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:
Proposals do not accord with the Council’s SPD Increase in houses over Local Plan allocation BRE guidance on sunlight not met. Fence shadows not shown on sunlight report Ignores the fact No. 31 has an extension Loss of light Loss of view
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mark Jackson spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
The Committee approved the scheme in March 2015 Application is referred back as a precautionary measure Bat survey is acceptable Dry means of escape has been demonstrated.
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
It is a progress report, already been approved Scheme is identical to that approved in March 2011 No objection from the Environment Agency Complies with Council’s planning policies and SPD Clarification on heights of plots 12 and 13 Change in national parking policy since March 2015 Change ion affordable housing policy since March 2015 Bat survey will protect wildlife
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Decision: The application was approved subject to a S106 agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.
205/15 15/00738/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00738/RVC - Variation of condition 5 - to alter the form of the approved building envelope.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning notified the committee that two minor amendments were made to the Committee report:
Page 69, condition 20 should refer to 35dba' rather than 3SdB.
Page 70 condition 23 should refer to A5 rather than AS.
Public Speaking: There was none.
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
There should be no decrease in car parking Car parking for the retail/restaurant uses should be provided
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
206/15 15/00739/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00739/RVC - Variation of Condition 6 - to provide a greater amount of residential floor space.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
207/15 15/00753/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00753/RVC - Variation of Condition 14 - to provide a new access from a new link road rather than Mill Mead.
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
208/15 15/00754/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00754/RVC - Variation of Condition 25 - to provide retail and restaurant uses on the High Street frontage.
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
209/15 15/00755/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00755/RVC - The removal of Condition 18 - relating to visibility splays required with the approved access from Mill Mead.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
210/15 15/00756/RVC - Former Majestic House Site, High Street, Staines- upon-Thames
Description: Variation and removal of planning conditions imposed on outline approval reference 09/00566/OUT allowed on appeal in 2011; for the redevelopment of the former Majestic House site (S73 applications).
15/00756/RVC - The removal of Condition 24 - concerned with providing Public Art.
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to a S106 agreement.
211/15 15/0 0254/FUL - Hithermoor Farm, 6 Farm Way, Stanwell Moor, Staines-upon-Thames, TW19 6AY
Description: Application for planning permission for: - (i) Conversion of 4 no. buildings and farmhouse to a hotel use; (ii) Alterations and extensions to the external elevations, and the erection of a single storey canopy to the rear of farmhouse; (iii) Demolition of remaining redundant farm/light industrial buildings; (iv) Erection of 3 no. 2-storey accommodation buildings; (v) Provision of associated parking, bin store, cycle store, landscaping and other alterations, for overall development of a 58 bedroom hotel with associated staff accommodation.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning informed the committee that correspondence had been received from SCAN relating to the provision of facilities for disabled people. She advised that this had been dealt with in the Committee report. Furthermore she noted that some amended plans had been received showing minor changes to the kitchen extraction system which addressed the concerns from the Pollution Control Officer, together with minor alterations to other plans.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
In addition a consultation response from SBC’s Pollution Control Officer had been received which reported no objection to the latest kitchen extraction scheme subject to an amendment to condition 22.
Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Sati Panesar spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
Previous planning permission not financially viable Extensive pre-application meetings to achieve a compromise and balance Decrease in scale of development compared with appeal scheme Will improve open character No objection from consultees Social and environmental improvements It is a sustainable development
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised: Retains listed building Preserves paddock Reduced development compared with appeal scheme Access query
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to Applications approved as per agenda subject to the following conditions and informatives: Condition 2 of 15/00254/FUL and Condition 3 of 15/00255/LBC is to be amended as follows: Condition 2 of 15/00254/FUL The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings:
2014/26/P01; /P03; /P04; /P05; /P06; /P12; /P13; /P19; /P20; /P23; /P24; /P25; /P30A received 04 March 2015
Amended plans 2014/26/P01 Rev. A; /P02 Rev. A; /P03 Rev. A; /P04 Rev. A; /P05 Rev. A; /P15 Rev. A; /P16 Rev. A; /P17 Rev. A; /P18 Rev. A; /P21 Rev. A; /P22 Rev. A; P11-2 Rev. B received 08 July 2015
Additional plans 2014/26/P30 & 2014/26/P31 received 08 July 2015.
Amended plans 2014/26/P11-1 Rev. B & 2014/26/P11-2 Rev. A received 20 July 2015
Amended plans 2014/26/P02 Rev. A; /P07 Rev. B; /P08 Rev. B; /P09 Rev. B; /P10 Rev. B; /P27 Rev. A; /P28 Rev. A; /P29 Rev. A received 27 July 2015.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning Condition 22 to be amended and an informative added as follows: A) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted: i) Details of suitable ventilation and filtration equipment to be installed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should comprise odour abatement and sound attenuation measures (so that the noise levels are 5 dBA below background). ii) The specific maintenance schedule for the approved abatement system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must be based on the manufacturer’s recommendations, taking food type and hours of cooking into account. iii) The approved details shall be installed prior to the occupation of the premises for the use hereby permitted. Proof of correct installation and correct function shall be submitted.
B) The installed ventilation and filtration equipment shall thereafter be operated and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Maintenance records should be kept for a period of two years. These should include receipts for consumables, certificates of cleaning, and staff records of cleaning and changing filters.
Reason: -In the interests of the amenities of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of nearby premises.
Informative The applicant is advised that the details of the ventilation and filtration equipment to be submitted should include (but not limited to): Dimensions of ducting; model and type of grease filtration and prefilters; model, type, and residence time of carbon filtration or other suitable odour supressing technology; efflux velocity; type of food to be cooked, hours of cooking. Receipts will be required for proof of installation; a flow check report will be required for proof of correct function. For further advice and information, the applicant is advised to contact Environmental Health on 01784 446251. An information sheet entitled “guidance on the control of odour and noise from commercial kitchen exhaust systems” can be downloaded from Spelthorne’s website at www.spelthorne.gov.uk.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
212/15 15/00255/LBC - Hithermoor Farm, 6 Farm Way, Stanwell Moor, Staines-upon-Thames, TW19 6AY
Description: Application for Listed Building Consent for: - (i) Conversion of 4 no. building and farmhouse to a hotel use; (ii) Internal and external alterations and extensions to the 4 no. buildings and farmhouse; (iii) Other associated works, for overall development of a 58 bedroom hotel with associated staff accommodation.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning informed the committee that correspondence had been received from SCAN relating to the provision of facilities for disabled people. She advised that this had been dealt with in the Committee report. Furthermore she noted that some amended plans had been received showing minor changes to the kitchen extraction system which addressed the concerns from the Pollution Control Officer, together with minor alterations to other plans. In addition a consultation response from SBC’s Pollution Control Officer had been received which reported no objection to the latest kitchen extraction scheme subject to an amendment to condition 22.
Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Sati Panesar spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
Previous planning permission not financially viable Decrease in scale of development compared with appeal scheme Will improve open character No objection from consultees Social and environmental improvements
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised: Retains listed building Preserves paddock Reduced development compared with appeal scheme Access query
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and subject to Applications approved as per agenda subject to the following conditions and informatives:
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Condition 3 of 15/00255/LBC The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings:
2014/26/P01; /P03; /P04; /P05; /P06; /P12; /P13; /P19; /P20; /P23; /P24; /P25; /P30A received 04 March 2015
Amended plans 2014/26/P01 Rev. A; /P02 Rev. A; /P03 Rev. A; /P04 Rev. A; /P05 Rev. A; /P15 Rev. A; /P16 Rev. A; /P17 Rev. A; /P18 Rev. A; /P21 Rev. A; /P22 Rev. A; P11-2 Rev. B received 08 July 2015
Additional plans 2014/26/P30 & 2014/26/P31 received 08 July 2015.
Amended plans 2014/26/P11-1 Rev. B & 2014/26/P11-2 Rev. A received 20 July 2015
Amended plans 2014/26/P02 Rev. A; /P07 Rev. B; /P08 Rev. B; /P09 Rev. B; /P10 Rev. B; /P27 Rev. A; /P28 Rev. A; /P29 Rev. A received 27 July 2015.
Reason:- For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning Condition 22 to be amended and an informative added as follows: A) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted: i) Details of suitable ventilation and filtration equipment to be installed shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should comprise odour abatement and sound attenuation measures (so that the noise levels are 5 dBA below background). ii) The specific maintenance schedule for the approved abatement system shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must be based on the manufacturer’s recommendations, taking food type and hours of cooking into account. iii) The approved details shall be installed prior to the occupation of the premises for the use hereby permitted. Proof of correct installation and correct function shall be submitted.
B) The installed ventilation and filtration equipment shall thereafter be operated and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Maintenance records should be kept for a period of two years. These should include receipts for consumables, certificates of cleaning, and staff records of cleaning and changing filters.
Reason: -In the interests of the amenities of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of nearby premises.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Informative The applicant is advised that the details of the ventilation and filtration equipment to be submitted should include (but not limited to): Dimensions of ducting; model and type of grease filtration and prefilters; model, type, and residence time of carbon filtration or other suitable odour supressing technology; efflux velocity; type of food to be cooked, hours of cooking. Receipts will be required for proof of installation; a flow check report will be required for proof of correct function. For further advice and information, the applicant is advised to contact Environmental Health on 01784 446251. An information sheet entitled “guidance on the control of odour and noise from commercial kitchen exhaust systems” can be downloaded from Spelthorne’s website at www.spelthorne.gov.uk.
213/15 15/00559/FUL - North Surrey Primary Care Trust, St. David's Health Centre, Hadrian Way, Stanwell, Staines-upon-Thames, TW19 7HT
Description: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 12 dwellings in a mix of 1 and 2 bed apartments and 3 and 3 bedroomed houses with associated landscaping, parking and accesses.
Additional Information: There was no update.
Public Speaking: There was no public speaking.
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Will result to an improvement within the Stanwell area.
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.
214/15 15/00718/HOU - 21 Chesterfield Road, Ashford, TW15 2NE
Description: Alteration to roofline from that previously approved under application 13/00769/HOU (not as currently constructed).
Additional Information:
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Correction to Committee report: The end of para 7.4 should have the following words added: “impact on the amenities of the adjoining dwellings.” Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Andrew Goldstraw spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:
Planning approval by stealth Concern over room in loft – overlooking to no. 23 Over-dominant and overshadowing Parking adequacy Bulk/massing – detrimental to the street scene Different roof angles appears out of character Roof not subservient Conversion of garage to habitable room – granny annexe Contrary to Consent Order (not a planning matter)
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Mayaga Ehathasan spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
Apologised for the planning history of the site That it was an ongoing neighbour dispute Builder did not built to the approved plan
Councillor Nick Gething spoke on this proposal raising the following key points:
Overdevelopment of the site Application does not meet the policies of the borough Garage cannot be used for parking Applicant has not built to the approved plans Bulk and massing concerns
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Bulk and massing concerns Overdevelopment Enforcement action not supported Already refused – large scale development Builder at fault
Decision: 1) The application was refused as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy for the following reasons:
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
The proposed roof alteration would, despite its slight reduction in scale, still appear unduly dominant in relation to the host dwelling due to its height and bulk, and would not be viewed as a subordinate to the existing roof of the property. Consequently the proposal would result in a form of development that would have an unacceptable impact on the wider character of the area and would dominate this part of the streetscene, resulting in an incongruous form of development. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (February 2009) and the Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (April 2011).
2) That an Enforcement Notice be served to secure the removal of the unauthorised roof element over the two storey side extension for the reasons set out in 1) above. Such notice to be complied with within 3 months of coming into effect.
215/15 15/00364/HOU - 108 The Avenue, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 5EX
Description: Retention of single storey side/rear extension following demolition of former side garage.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning and Housing Strategy reported that one letter has been received from the applicant that raised matters regarding improved security, boundary issues damage to neighbours property and the Party Wall Act. She advised the committee that none of these were planning matters.
Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Philip Rochford spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:
Damage to property Right of light ignored Part wall agreement ignored Should be 1m away from boundary 800 cu m of land taken
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Darren MacPherson spoke for the proposal raising the following key points
Tried to communicate with neighbor at no. 108 No encroachment
The Chairman read out a statement on behalf of Councillor A.E. Friday, who called-in the application as Ward Councillor, commenting that whatever the decision, he hoped both parties would respect it.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Is a low level sensitive replacement No other properties in the area have been built to the boundary If screening removed, objector would see extension Query over demolition of garage raised
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.
216/15 15/00859/FUL - The Courtyard, High Street, Staines-upon- Thames, Surrey, TW18 4DR
Description: Change of use of The Courtyard (Use Class B1a) to 17 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) comprising 16 no. 2-bed and 1 no. 3-bed units, together with replacement windows and entrance doors, the provision of a new entrance feature, bin storage, cycle storage and the realignment of existing car parking spaces.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning advised the committee that a consultation response had been received from the Environment Agency raising no objection subject to a condition reported.
Furthermore a consultation response had been received from Environmental Health which raised no objection on air quality grounds reported.
Public Speaking: There was no public speaking.
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
More dwellings could be provided
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy and the following additional condition:
1) Prior to the commencement of development details of a dry means of escape in a 1 in 100 year flood event from the site to an area outside the flood plain, together with a Flood Evacuation Plan, shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
The measures in the Flood Evacuation Plan shall be carried out as approved.
Reason In the interest of minimizing flood risk
217/15 15/00863/HOU - 47 Queensway, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6HA
Description: Demolition of existing garage and erection of a part single storey/part two- storey side extension, two-storey rear extension and single storey front extension.
Additional Information: The Assistant Head of Planning advised the committee that two late letters had been received from 73 The Avenue which also represented 45 Queensway and raised the following issues: Proposal was little different from the previous appeal scheme and continues to be excessive. Cramped form of development. Harmful to the surrounding area. The development would be overbearing in relation to 45 Queensway Increase in overlooking Concern that the property would be converted into 2 houses in the future and that there should be a condition imposed to prevent this.
Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Kevin Yates spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
Revised scheme to appeal proposal Concern about late letters of objection being reported to Committee
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Is a reduction from the appeal scheme Improvement in the street scene Committee can consider late representations
Decision: The application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.
218/15 14/00157/ENF - 33 School Road, Ashford, TW15 2BT
Description: Unauthorised use of outbuilding for residential purposes.
Additional Information:
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
The Assistant Head of planning reported that correspondence had been received from the owner raising concerns about the enforcement notice and commenting that there are 11 members of his family and they wish to live in one home.
Public Speaking: In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Ian Mazzone spoke against the proposal raising the following key points:
Building has never been used for a gym It is a dwelling 10 people live at the property Noise disturbance late at night
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Israr Rao spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:
Has 11 members of family including lots of children living there and they need the space Family want to stay together No noise created
Debate: During the debate the following key issues were raised:
Building will be retained for use ancillary to house
Decision: That Enforcement Notices be issued requiring the following steps:
1) Cease the unauthorised use of the building as primary living accommodation and for the building to be converted back to a gym.
2) Such Notice to be complied with within 3 months of it taking effect.
Reasons for Serving of Notice
The use of the outbuilding for primary habitable purposes results in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential properties and has a detrimental impact on their amenity and enjoyment of their houses and gardens. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies EN1 and EN11 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on the Design of New Residential Development (April 2011).
219/15 Standard Appeals Report
Planning Committee, 29 July 2015 - continued
The Chairman informed the Committee that if any Member had any detailed queries regarding the report on Appeals lodged and decisions received since the last meeting, they should contact the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy.
Resolved that the report of the Head of Planning and Housing Strategy be received and noted.
Rostrevor
Redwood
Meadcotte
Oakford
The Decks
Stadbury
Theslum Kingscliff
D A
O The Nutshells
R
Redwood The Laurels K
Lodge R A P Riverside
Nimrod D
A
O
R
Y
Kingswood The Majik E
B
Mermaid B
A
Satsun
Logeast Coney Croft
11.0m Watersmeet T Ripple Way Rosegarth OWPATH Cottage
Clock House
Haroldene
Weir House River Thames
El 11.0m Sub Sta Thames Landing Stages Landing Stage Court (PH)
Manana Lan din g S tag Philae e Willow Cottage 11.1m Nada Maleesh
Sphinx
L an din g Pharaoh's Pharaoh's Island St Isis ag Island e
El Sub Sta
Sunset Cottage Slipway
Lotus
Mahbrouk 15/00511/HOU P±yramid Satsun, Park Road, Shepperton, TW17 9LL Osiris Landing Stage 1:1,250 (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 1ge0s0024284. Slipway Sta Landing Stage ding Lan
Landing `Planning Committee
26 August 2015
15/00511/FUL Site Address Satsun. Park Road, Shepperton, TW17 9LL Proposal Erection of rear and side extension following demolition of toilet and shower building (retrospective) and use of the building as a permanent residential dwelling. Applicant Mr Richard Hill Ward Shepperton Town Call in details N/A Case Officer Kelly Walker Application Target: Over 8 Valid: 18/05/2015 Expiry: 13/07/2015 Dates weeks. Executive This application relates to a small building, which is not a permanent Summary residential dwelling but is used for occasional recreational purposes. Permission was refused and dismissed at appeal for its demolition and replacement with a single storey dwelling in 1986. In 2013.permission was also refused for the erection of a dwelling following demolition of the existing buildings. Both applications were refused on Green Belt and Flooding grounds. The applicants have now extended the main building on site following demolition of the w/c building, without the required planning consent and the resultant building is being used as a permanent residential unit.
Following a complaint the applicants were requested to submit a retrospective application. As such permission is sought for the retention of the extension to the main building, following demolition of the w/c building and the change of use from an occasional recreational use to a permanent residential dwelling. The site is located within the Green Belt, plotland area and within the functional flood plain (greater than 1 in 20 year chance of flooding).
The extension of the building and its use as residential is contrary to Green Belt and flooding policies. The proposal is unacceptable.
Therefore the application is recommended for refusal. Recommended Refuse planning permission and take enforcement action to remove Decision the extension and cease the use.
MAIN REPORT
1. Development Plan
Core Strategy and Policies DPD
EN1 (Design of New Development) LO1 (Flooding) CC3 (Parking Provision) EN8 (Protecting and Improving the Landscape and Biodiversity) EN9 (River Thames and its Tributaries)
Saved Local Plan Policies
GB1
Supplementary Planning Document
SPD on Flooding July 2012.
National Planning
National Planning Policy Framework 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance 2014
2. Relevant Planning History
Application No. Proposal Decision & Date 13/00872/FUL Erection of replacement dwelling Application following demolition of existing dwelling Refused 06.08.2013
SPE/FUL/85/8 Erection of a single-storey dwelling of Application 64 81 sq. m (872 sq. ft.) with detached Refused single garage, together with the 12.02.1986 and demolition of the existing structures dismissed at totalling 275 sq. m (290 sq. ft.). Appeal ref T/APP/Z3635/A/ 86/052153/P2
3. Description of Site
3.1 The site is located on the western side of Park Road which is a short road leading off the Towpath, opposite Pharaoh’s Island. The site is a large square plot located within the functional floodplain (1 in 20 year event), the Green Belt, and a designated plot land area. Other neighbouring properties are long established as residential and are detached, some single storey and some with accommodation in the roof space. Properties to the south front the Towpath and the River Thames.
3.2 In regards to the subject site, it and the buildings have an established use for private recreational purposes and not as a residential site. Within the Borough there are significant stretches of the River Thames where ‘plotland’ development has become established although not all plots have a river frontage. Most of the properties in these areas originated as weekend or holiday bungalows during the 1920s and 30s but many have become established permanent residential dwellings prior to planning controls introduced in their current from in 1947.
3.3 The site is currently occupied by 2 buildings. One (building A), was originally a garage type structure and is the subject of this current application, which has recently been extended. The other building (building B) is a wooden shed type building with a pitched roof. Previously there was also a small wooden building (building C) forming the w/c which has been demolished. (see table below)
Structure Previous footprint Current footprint (area in sq. m) (area in sq. m) A - main building 15.65 36.6 B – shed type building 11 11 C – w/c building 3.5 0
Overall area 30.15 47.6
4. Background
4.1 Previously planning permission ref E/85/864 and subsequent appeal which was dismissed on 29 October 1986 (ref T/APP/Z3635/A/86/052153/P2) confirmed that the site does not benefit from permanent residential use. The applicants have previously contested this.
4.2 Planning permission was also refused in August 2013, (ref 13/00872/FUL) for the erection of a ‘replacement dwelling following demotion of existing’. The Council did not agree that the building on the site had established permanent residential use and refused the scheme on the grounds of being inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and also introducing a new household into the functional floodplain.
4.3 On 24 February 2015, it was brought to the Councils attention that works were being carried out at this site and the main building was being extended without planning permission. The Council’s Enforcement Officer investigated and established that the small w/c outbuilding had been demolished and a large extension and modifications to the main existing building on the site had been carried out. Whilst the applicants were invited to submit a retrospective planning application, they were reminded of the recent refusal for a permanent dwelling on the site.
4.4 In this current application the applicants are applying formally for the use of the extended building as a dwellinghouse, as such they appear to agree that the site does not benefit from established permanent residential use.
5 Description of Current Proposal
5.1 This current scheme is for the works that have already been carried out that require planning permission. They involve a rear extension following demolition of the existing toilet and shower building and also the change of use of the extended building from occasional recreational use to use as a permanent residential dwelling.
5.2 The existing main structure (building A) was 15.65 sq. m in area and the extension measures 20.95 sq. m which has resulted in a building of some 36.6 sq. m. (This would be well below the minimum size of 50 sq. m we would require for a one bedroom dwelling as set out in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on design).
5.3 This extension to the building was carried out following the demolition of another very small building (building C), previously located behind the main building, which was wooden and consisted of w/c facilities, measuring 3.5 sq. m in area.
5.4 There is also still on site another structure to the north, (building B) similar to a wooden shed type building, which was under construction during the early part of 2010 when the Councils Enforcement Officer visited the site. This appears to have replaced an existing structure on the site and measures 11 sq. m in area.
5.5 Previously the 3 buildings on site equated to a total area of 30.15 sq. m. Following the removal of the small outbuilding and extension to the main building the remaining 2 buildings on the site now measure 47.6 sq. m in area.
5.6 The original structure on the site was very small, in particular the building containing the living, bedroom and kitchen facilities was only some 15.65 sq. m. The applicants stated in their previous design and access statement that 'the buildings were built prior to the war and were used as an occasional dwelling house’
5.7 The Inspector dismissed an appeal in 1986 and described the building (in para 6) as a 'single garage type structure' and did not consider the structures to be a permanent residential dwelling and stated that 'the project does not meet the criterion of a one for one replacement of an existing permanent dwelling.' It would appear that the applicant has extended the property without permission to try to overcome this objection and make the main building larger to enable an improved size and therefore standard of accommodation.
5.9 The planning position in terms of the use of the structures remains unchanged and it is considered that the site does not have established permanent residential use, and therefore it would not have permitted development rights. As such the extension of the building requires planning permission.
6. Consultations
6.1 The following consultation responses have been received:
Consultee Comment County Highway Authority No objection Raises objection as a “more vulnerable Environment Agency development” and is not appropriate in floodzone 3b. The Council’s Tree Advisor No objection
7. Public Consultation
7.1 One letter has been received saying they have no objection to the proposal. The previous application received a number of letters objecting on a number of grounds including flooding and the fact that property had not be used for residential purposes in 30 years
8. Issues
Planning Policy Green Belt Plotland Flooding
9. Planning Considerations
Planning Policy
9.1 The relevant local planning policies for the development of the site and the issues the proposal raises are set out in the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (CS&P DPD) which was adopted by the Council in February 2009, the Allocations DPD adopted in December 2009 and in six ‘saved’ policies in the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan. Additionally, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012 and National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 2014 are also applicable to this application.
9.2 The NPPF makes it clear that the up to date ‘development plan’ is the starting point for assessing schemes and states (in para. 14) that development proposals that accord with the ‘development plan’ should be approved “without delay”. This is also legally the required starting point in considering all planning applications (see Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Spelthorne Borough has an up to date adopted development plan and any planning proposals should be determined in accordance with this plan unless advice in the NPPF supersedes the plan.
Plotland
9.3 The site is located within the plotland area as previously mentioned, however it does not relate to the extension of an authorised dwelling and as such policy EN2 is not relevant in this case.
Green Belt
9.4 Saved Local Plan Policy GB1 aims to ensure that development which conflicts with the purposes of the Green Belt and maintaining its openness will not be permitted.
9.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 87 states that ‘…inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.’ Paragraph 88 states that ‘...when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weigh is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’
9.6 It goes on to say that the local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belts. Paragraph 89 and 90 list exceptions to this, including, ‘…the extension or the alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.’
9.7 The proposed retention of the single storey rear extension and conversion of the overall building from an occasional recreational use to a dwellinghouse does not fit into any of the exceptions stipulated in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. It is not solely the re-use of the building and the extension is disproportionate in that the extended building is much larger than the one it replaces. The footprint of the proposed dwelling is 36.6 sq. m, a 134% increase from the original 15.65 sq. m. This is substantially larger than the original structure on its own or even including the small w/c building that was demolished (3.5 sq. m area). As such the resultant building is a much larger structure than the existing and is a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, despite the size of the site.
9.8 Although the proposal results in the removal of an outbuilding this was very small and there was a gap between the buildings. The floor space replacing it is substantially larger and the main building on the site is now much larger than the original one. As such there will be some loss of openness at the site.
9.9 The previous applications at the site were also refused on Green Belt grounds by the Council and on appeal and the appeal decision is a material planning consideration. There are no further considerations put forward by the applicant in support of the application and as such it is considered that no very special circumstances exist.
9.10 The proposal is therefore considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would have a negative impact on its openness, contrary to policy GB1 and the NPPF.
Flooding
9.11 Policy LO1 (as further amplified by the Councils Supplementary Planning Document on Flooding – 2012), seeks to reduce flood risk and its adverse effect on people and property in Spelthorne. The site is located within flood zone 3b and has a greater than 1 in 20 year chance of flooding. Within this functional floodplain area, appropriate uses would only comprise those that are “water compatible”. Housing is classed as a “more vulnerable use” and as such allowing a permanent residential dwelling on the site, that currently does not have such a use, would result in the introduction of an additional household into the flood plain and consequently there would be a risk to the health and safety of the occupants in a flood event, which is unacceptable.
9.12 It is also considered that the extension itself, which is only slightly raised above the ground level of the site, as well as the decked area, will not result in a better flooding situation than previously, as it replaces a much smaller building and will further impede flood water flows and thereby cause a greater flood risk in the wider area.
9.13 The Environment Agency (EA) have objected to the proposal as it is inappropriate for the flood zone in which it is located, given it is for a “more vulnerable use”. They state that the proposal is contrary to paragraph 67 and 103 of the NPPF and policy LO1 part of which states that ‘… the Council will seek to reduce flood risk and its adverse effects on people and property in Spelthorne by (d) maintaining the effectiveness of the more frequently flooded area (Zone 3b) of the floodplain to both store water and allow the movement of fast flowing water by not permitting any additional development including extensions.’
9.14 The EA also state that it is contrary to the Councils SPD on flooding 2012 para 4.2 which states that, ‘Spelthorne’s approach to development and flood risk in Policy LO1 is to: 1. Support measures to reduce the risk of flooding to existing properties. 2. Apply strict controls over new development.’
They state in their reasoning for their objection that the site lies within flood zone 3b functional flood plain defined by Spelthorne Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where notwithstanding the mitigating measures proposed, the risk to life both within the development and in upstream and/or downstream locations from fluvial inundation would be unacceptable if the development were to be allowed. The EA also confirm that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is inadequate.
9.15 In conclusion, the use of the property as a permanent residential use and therefore a new dwelling on the site would be contrary to Green Belt and Flooding policy. The structure itself is also considered to be contrary to both Green Belt and Flooding given the impact on flood water flows and the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore the proposed retention of the extension and use of the building as a permanent dwelling is considered to be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy GB1 and Policy LO1 of the C S and P DPD and the NPPF.
Enforcement Considerations
9.16 Where enforcement action may lead to the loss of someone’s home the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights such as Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 8 and Article 14 are relevant. There is a clear public interest in enforcing planning law and planning regulation in a proportionate way. In this case, having regard to the wider policy context in terms of Green Belt and flood policy. In deciding whether enforcement action is taken, local planning authorities should, where relevant, have regard to the potential impact on the health, housing needs and welfare of those affected by the proposed action, and those who are affected by a breach of planning control. In this case there is the risk to the occupants of the building being located in a high risk flood area, but also the need to allow sufficient time for these current occupants to find alternative accommodation.
9.17 In this case the wider planning harm and flood risk to the occupants justifies taking enforcement action to cease the use subject to a recommended period of 6 months for compliance to enable alternative accommodation to the found and demolition to then take place.
9.18 The application is recommended for refusal.
A. REFUSE for the following reasons:-
Reasons
1. The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy GB1 and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. . 2. The site is located within Flood Zone 3b (greater than 1 in 20 year chance of flooding) and the use of the building as a permanent residential unit and therefore the creation of a new dwelling, is a 'more vulnerable' use in this area, and would be inappropriate to place more people at risk from flooding. Furthermore, the extension will impede the flow of flood water and cause greater flood risk on people in a wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LO1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the Supplementary Planning Document on Flooding July 2012.
B. That an Enforcement Notice be issued requiring the following steps:-
- Cease the use of the building as a dwellinghouse - Demolish the single storey extension and remove all resultant debris from the site.
Such Notice to be complied with within 6 months of it taking effect.
Reasons for serving of Notice:-
1. The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, contrary to Saved Local Plan Policy GB1 and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. . 2. The site is located within Flood Zone 3b (greater than 1 in 20 year chance of flooding) and the use of the building as a permanent residential unit and therefore the creation of a new dwelling, is a 'more vulnerable' use in this area, and would be inappropriate to place more people at risk from flooding. Furthermore, the extension will impede the flow of flood water and cause greater flood risk on people in a wider area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy LO1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the Supplementary Planning Document on Flooding July 2012.
3,840
1,220
TOILET
AREA 11M2 2,850
2,855 SHOWER
AREA 3.5M2
3,050
LIVING /BEDROOM /KITCHEN
AREA 15 .65M2
5,130
1 2 3 4 5 TEGWYNNE GOLDTHORPE ARCHITECT 20 HAMHAUGH ISLAND . SHEPPERTON . TW179LP . TELEPHONE 01932240878 . MOBILE 07711950884 e-mail [email protected] . website www.tegwynne-goldthorpe.co.uk CLIENT MR AND MRS HILL
PROJECT SATSUN DRAWING Existing Ground Floor, Elevations
SCALE 1:50 DATE March 2015 NUMBER SS/1/01 REV 4425
EXISTING CEPTIC TANK
N
4485
INCOMING ELECTRICS NEW CONSUMER UNIT
TEGWYNNE GOLDTHORPE ARCHITECT 20 HAMHAUGH ISLAND . SHEPPERTON . TW179LP . TELEPHONE 01932240878 . MOBILE 07711950884 e-mail [email protected] . website www.tegwynne-goldthorpe.co.uk 0 1 2 3 4 5 CLIENT MR AND MRS HILL
PROJECT SATSUN DRAWING Proposed Ground Floor, roof plan
SCALE 1:50 DATE March 2015 NUMBER SS/1/03 REV roof to align
Asbestos roof replaced with tiles Tiles
Timber boarding
TEGWYNNE GOLDTHORPE ARCHITECT 20 HAMHAUGH ISLAND . SHEPPERTON . TW179LP . TELEPHONE 01932240878 . MOBILE 07711950884 e-mail [email protected] . website www.tegwynne-goldthorpe.co.uk CLIENT MR AND MRS HILL
PROJECT SATSUN DRAWING Proposed Elevation, Elevation
SCALE 1:50 DATE March 2015 NUMBER SS/1/05 REV
9
W
O
D
A E
M 6 1 s S E e
M A m
H T a h T r e 8 1 iv R
1 E 2 N A L N O T L A W
23 4 2 22
30 29 a 2 30 3 Slipway
9.8m
Foot Bridge
10.1m
t Bdy Def Co Cons
C S 13.4m
15/00098/PLNCON Track ± 22 Thames Meadow, Shepperton, TW17 8LT
1:1,250 (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 100024284. Planning Committee
26 August 2015
Enforcement Ref: 15/00098/PLNCON Site Address 22 Thames Meadow Shepperton TW17 8LT Breach Use of the land for residential purposes and a storage facility Ward Shepperton Town Recommended That an Enforcement Notice be issued requiring the following steps: - Decision Cease the use of the boat mooring, use of vehicles and land for residential purposes, remove all motorised vehicles, the additional structure to the existing outbuilding, the hoardings, all building material, garage door, gas bottles, white goods, iron works and general debris from the site. In order that the site remains clear apart from the original outbuilding. The reason to serve the Enforcement notice is in order to maintain the openness of Green Belt land and avoid the risk of flooding to the occupants and accumulative flood risk elsewhere by the structures and materials on the site Such notice to be complied with within 6 months of it taking effect.
MAIN REPORT
1. Background
This site is located on a private narrow no-through road that follows the north bank of the River Thames and is highly visible from Walton Lane on the south side of the river. This site is open land which was occupied by a detached dwelling up until some 30 years ago. The site is located within approved Green Belt and an area liable to Flood
2. Development Plan
Within the Green Belt Within the Flood Zone 3b Within Plotlands
3. Relevant Planning History
14/00044/FUL Erection of a detached single-storey Refused -12/3/14 dwelling with ancillary parking space. Appeal Dismissed - 16/9/14 11/00997/FUL Erection of a detached dwelling with Refused – 6/1/12 ancillary parking. 11/00583/FUL Erection of a detached dwelling with Refused – 29/9/11 ancillary parking. 11/00048/FUL Erection of a detached dwelling with Refused – 25/3/11 ancillary parking 97/00546/FUL Erection of a one bedroomed Granted – 4/2/98 detached bungalow. 97/00293/FUL Erection of a three bedroom detached Refused – 17/7/97 chalet SPE/FUL/85/100 Erection of a replacement single- Granted – 8/5/85 storey PLAN Erection of (a) a single-storey Refused – 27/7/83 E/FUL/83/392 extension fronting Thames Meadow measuring 13 ft. 8 ins. (4.2 m) by 16 ft. (4.9 m) to provide a bedroom and (b) a single-storey flank extension measuring 6 ft. 3 ins. (1.9 m) by 25 ft. 4 ins. (7.7 m) to provide a bathroom, shower room and cupboard. PLAN The erection of a detached one Granted – 16/4/75 S/FUL/74/696 bedroomed bungalow of approximately 574 sq ft (53.32 sq m) following the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings.
4. Details of Complaints and Unauthorised Development
4.1 Following a letter of complaint to the Council and an unaccompanied visit to the outside of the site, a Enforcement Officer met with the owner on 29/7/15 and confirmed the site was being used to store 3 vehicles, various household goods – including an oven and a refridgerator and general household and building debris. The site is surrounded by hoardings which would require planning permission. One of the vehicles, a Luton style van appears to have been converted to residential use.
4.2 A letter was written to the owner on 8/5/15 requesting that all items be removed from the site and the hoardings be removed in order to maintain the openness of the Green Belt land. The letter also advised him of the Planning Inspectorates appeal decision on 16/9/14 where item 8 states ‘whilst the site was previously occupied by a building it has been vacant for 30 years or so and is open land. The development of a dwelling on the site would detract from its openness in the Green Belt and would therefore conflict with one of the fundamental aims of Green Belt policy’.
4.3 Despite the previous appeal the owner explained his intention was to apply again for planning permission and respond to the letter requiring the site to be cleared of unauthorised material.
4.4 A site visit was conducted on 21/7/15 the hoardings were locked. Photographs taken over the hoardings revealed that the site had worsened in regards to items being stored on site.
5. Planning Considerations
5.1 The site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It is not considered that any very special circumstances exist that would allow the use and the ‘Saved’ Policy GB1 supports the policy framework. Therefore the use of the land for residential purposes is considered to represent ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt.
5.2 Policy LO1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD sets out the Council’s approach to new development in areas liable to flood and in Flood Zone 3b the policy is ‘not to permit any additional development’.
5.3 In addition, the unauthorised storage of material and hoardings around the site in the flood plain would result in the reduction in flood storage capacity and particularly impede the flow of flood water.
5.6 The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights such as Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 8 and Article 14 are relevant when considering enforcement action. There is a clear public interest in enforcing planning law and planning regulation in a proportionate way. In deciding whether enforcement action is taken, local planning authorities should, where relevant, have regard to the potential impact on the health, housing needs and welfare of those affected by the proposed action, and those who are affected by a breach of planning control. In view of the need to enforce planning law for the public good it is not considered that this would contravene the Human Rights Act. Given the unauthorised use of the land, the impact on openness of the Green Belt, the impact on the flow of flood water and the flood risk of the occupant it is considered expedient to take enforcement action against this use.
5.7 It is therefore recommended that enforcement action be taken to :- Secure the cessation of the unauthorized use of the boat, mooring, vehicles and land for residential purposes. Remove all motorised vehicles, the additional structure to the existing outbuilding, the hoardings, all building material, garage door, gas bottles, white goods, iron works and general debris. However, regard must also be had to the need to give sufficient time for compliance and for existing occupants to find alternative accommodation. A six month period is considered reasonable.
Recommendation
That an Enforcement Notice be issued giving 6 months to undertake the following steps: -
Cease the use of the boat mooring, use of the land for residential purposes, and remove all vehicles, additional structure to existing outbuilding, the hoardings, all building material, garage door, gas bottles, white goods, iron works and general debris from the site in order to maintain the openness of Green Belt land and remove the flood risk to occupants and the impact on both the flow of the flood water and flood storage capacity.
Reason for Serving of Notice
The unauthorised residential use of the boat, land and mooring as it is at present is considered to represent ‘inappropriate’ development within the Green Belt and within an area liable to flood (1:20), this places the occupant at an unacceptable flood risk. The vehicles, white goods, building materials, and general debris would result in a reduction in flood storage capacity and impede the flow of flood water, as such it is contrary to policy LO1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development plan Document (2009).
Water
Shepperton Marina
St Georges Field
St Georges
Mascot
E N LA l a Y t N Riverlea b
N a
E s P Bridge Norwood o Bungalow o e M 1 e r
T
w 3 o l l B 2 o r 4 i H d g Montana e w
Frimley a t Beulah e r
Lyndhurst Penny Moorings Arcadia
1 Jetty Jetty 0 DE SI ER Landing IV R Stages
9 25 1 Jetty to 20 7 1 7 S 3 W to A 26 N W A L K
11
5 8 to 3 6 4 3 to 38
7 4 to 44 s s rd a e ll o m B a Th r ve 7 i 5 to R 52
15/00128/PLNCON Slipway ± Beulah, Penny Lane, Shepperton, TW17 8NF
1:1,250 FB (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 100024284. Marina Planning Committee
26 August 2015
Enforcement Ref: 15/00128/PLNCON Site Address Beulah Riverside Shepperton TW17 8NF Breach Change of use of barn-style garages into 2 residential units Ward Shepperton Town Recommended That an Enforcement Notice be issued requiring the following steps: - Decision Cease the use of the barn for residential purposes, and return the barn to the approved use under Planning permission 11/00922/HOU for garage purposes. Such notice to be complied with within 6 months of it taking effect.
MAIN REPORT
1 Background
1.1 This site is located on the south-western side of Penny Lane (Penny Lane is a Private unadopted road) and is occupied by a detached dwelling. The site is located within the Green Belt, a 'Plotland Area' and an Area liable to Flood. At the northern end of the plot a block of old garages were demolished and new barn- style garages were erected in their place following permission granted in 2012.
2 Development Plan
Within the Green Belt Within the Flood Zone 3b Within Plotlands
3 Relevant Planning History
11/00922/HOU - Erection of detached building incorporating barn style garages following demolition of existing garages. - Granted 30/1/12
92/00538/OUT – Erection of a detached dwelling – Refused 6/1/93
SUN/FUL/6823A – Erection of one detached bungalow of 107.76 sq m – Granted 14/8/73 SUN/FUL/6823 – Parking a caravan – Refused 2/1/62
4 Details of Complaints and Unauthorised Development
4.1 Following a complaint that the barn-style garages had been altered into 2 separate residential units a external site visit took place on 2/6/15 confirming the conversion had taken place.
4.2 An internal inspection took place on 2/7/15 at the barn. This confirmed there are 2 residential units that do not benefit from planning permission. The owners agent was advised that an application would not be invited and that Enforcement action would be taken to return the barn back to the approved use under planning permission 11/00922/HOU.
4.3 The Environment Agency have advised they would have an objection to the development. At the time of the 2011 application the Environment Agency didn’t raise an objection; as the barn style garages had partially open sides which would allow the passage of water through. The barn building as altered would now be considered as floodable structures which forms the basis of the Environment Agency objection.
5 Planning Considerations
5.1 Policy LO1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD sets out the Council’s approach to new development in areas liable to flood and in Flood Zone 3b the policy is ‘not to permit any additional development’. The enclosing of previously open areas on the ground floor would result in a reduction in flood storage capacity and impede the flow of flood water. Use as residential accommodation would increase the number of people in the flood plain and at risk from flooding
5.2 The site is also located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF sets out exceptions as to which structures or uses are acceptable within the Green Belt. Residential uses of the barn-style garages do not fall within these exceptions. It is not considered that any very special circumstances exist that would allow the use. ‘Saved’ Policy GB1 supports the policy framework. Therefore the use of the barn-style garages for residential purposes is considered to represent ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt.
5.3 The use constitutes “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt within this Plotlands area. It is therefore considered contrary to Policy EN2 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, saved Local Plan Policy GB1 (2001), and Section 9 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
5.4 The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights such as Article 1 of the First Protocol, Article 8 and Article 14 are relevant when considering enforcement action as the loss of residential accommodation is involved. There is a clear public interest in enforcing planning law and planning regulation in a proportionate way. In deciding whether enforcement action is taken, local planning authorities should, where relevant, have regard to the potential impact on the health, housing needs and welfare of those affected by the proposed action, and those who are affected by a breach of planning control. In view of the need to enforce planning law for the public good it is not considered that this would contravene the Human Rights Act. Given the unauthorised residential use of the barn and the impact of flood risk on the occupants it is considered expedient to take enforcement action against this use.
5.5 It is recommended that enforcement action be taken to :- Secure the cessation of the unauthorized use of the building as residential living accommodation. However, regard must also be had to the need to give sufficient time for compliance and for existing occupants to find alternative accommodation and alterations made to restore the structure back to its authorised use. A 6 month period is considered reasonable.
Recommendation
That an Enforcement Notice be issued giving 6 months to ensure the building is returned to that shown in the approved plans 11/00922/HOU issued by Oak Craft.
Reason for Serving of Notice
The use results in inappropriate development within the Green Belt for which no very special circumstances exist. The unauthorised development within the flood plain (1:20) places the occupants at an unacceptable flood risk. The enclosing of previously open areas on the ground floor of the structure would result in a reduction in flood storage capacity and impede the flow of flood water. As such it is contrary to policies LO1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development plan Document (2009) and Saved Local Plan Policy GB1 (2001), and Section 9 of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
BOROUGH OF SPELTHORNE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
Mr B Dickens c/o Mr Andrew Luckwell Wargrave Design Consultancy The Old Pump House Wargrave Berkshire BOROUGH COUNCIL RG10 8DJ
For: Mr B Dickens AML 11/00922/HOU
The BOROUGH OF SPELTHORNE as LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY under the provisions of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Part IX of the Local Government Act 1972, DO HEREBY
GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE 1 HERETO, subject to the Conditions specified in Schedule 2 hereto.
SCHEDULE 1
The development specified in the application for Planning Permission dated 25 November 2011 and shown on the plans submitted therewith, namely: PROPOSAL: Erection of detached building incorporating barn style garages following demolition of existing garages AT: Beulah Riverside Shepperton TW17 8NF
SCHEDULE 2
See attached list.
The reason(s) for the decision of the Council to grant Planning Permission for the development specified in Schedule 1, subject to any conditions specified in Schedule 2, are set out overleaf.
Dated 30 January 2012 Signed : Head of Planning & Housing Strategy Duly authorised in this behalf
ANY PERMISSION HEREBY GRANTED RELATES ONLY TO THAT WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990. CONSENT UNDER THE BUILDING REGULATIONS MAY ALSO BE NECESSARY.
PLEASE READ THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES OVERLEAF
1
11/00922/HOU
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason:-.This condition is required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. That the parking space(s) and/or garage(s) shown on the submitted plan be constructed within 3 months of the commencement of any other part of the development permitted, or such longer periods as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter the approved facilities together with the means of access thereto shall be maintained as approved, and be reserved for the benefit of the development hereby permitted.
Reason:-.To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or the conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway(s) and to ensure that the facilities provided are reserved for the benefit of the development for which they are specifically required, in accordance with policy CC3 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.
3. That the barn-style garages development hereby permitted be used only for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the existing dwelling and not for any form of habitable accommodation or for any other purposes without prior planning consent of the Local Planning Authority
Reason:-.To safeguard the amenities of the locality and of neighbouring residential properties
4. That the openings in the side walls of the barn-style garages as shown on drawing no. PL001 Revision B hereby approved be created and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:-.To safeguard the requirements of the Council's Green Belt, 'Plotland Area' and Flooding policies and the amenities of the locality.
5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans 1019-01 received 25 November 2011, PL001 Rev B received 16 December 2011 and site location plan received 21 October 2011.
Reason:-.For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
6. There shall be no raising of existing ground levels on the site within the area liable to flood, other than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason:-.To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and reduction in flood storage capacity in accordance with policies SP1, SP7 and LO1 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.
7. All spoil and building materials stored on site before and during construction shall be removed from the area of land liable to flood upon completion.
Reason:-.To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and reduction of flood storage capacity in accordance with policies SP1, SP7 and LO1 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.
INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT
1. Access by the Fire Brigade
Notice of the provisions of Section 20 of the Surrey County Council Act 1985 is hereby endorsed on this planning permission. Copies of the Section may be obtained from the Council Offices or from County Hall. Section 20 of this Act requires that when a building is erected or extended, proper provision must be made for the Fire Brigade to have means of access to the building or to any neighbouring buildings. There are also requirements relating to access and facilities for the fire service contained in Part B of the Building Regulations 2000 (as amended).
2. Practical advice on how to reduce flood damage to your property is available in a free document entitled "Preparing for Floods" (February 2002) - a comprehensive guide to help homeowners and small businesses to improve the flood resistance of their homes and premises. The guidance contains advice on both simple, low-cost measures to limit damage to valuables as well as suggestions on building alterations and designs that help keep water or reduce damage if flood water enters. The guide is aimed at homeowners, small businesses, planners and developers.
Copies of "Preparing for Floods" is available free of charge from the Environment Agency 24 hour "Floodline" on 0845 988 1188, or on our website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/floodline.
The Environment Agency's Flood Maps provide a general overview of areas of land in natural floodplains and therefore potentially at risk of flooding from rivers. To find out more information about whether your property lies within the floodplain, investigate the Agency's website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk and browse under the "What's in your backyard?" pages. Additional information on the Flood Maps can also be found on the site. Alternatively, contact the Environment Agency's Floodline on 0845 988 1188.
The Environment Agency recommends that in areas at risk of flooding consideration be given to the incorporation into the design and construction of the development of flood proofing measures. These include barriers on ground floor doors, windows and access points and bringing in electrical services into the building at a high level so that plugs are located above possible flood levels. Additional guidance can be found in the Environment Agency Floodline Publication 'Damage Limitation'. A free copy of this is available by telephoning 0845 988 1188. Reference should also be made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister publication 'Preparing for Floods'.
3. This development is situated within 250 metres of a current or historic landfill site or gravel pit. A gas impermeable membrane should be incorporated within the structure along with a ventilated sub floor area. Any services entering/leaving the structure should be located above the gas impermeable membrane or alternatively, adequate seals will need to be provided if the membrane is to be breached. The details of the gas impermeable membrane and with particular attention to the joins with any existing structure and seals around any services, plus details of the sub-floor ventilation should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the works being carried out.
The applicant is advised to contact Spelthorne's Pollution Control team on 01784 446251 for further advice and information before any work commences.
4. The applicant is advised that the site to which this planning permission relates is located on or near land that may contain harmful substances. Under Part C of the Building Regulations you will be required to consider this when designing the foundations of the development.
The applicant is advised to contact Spelthorne's Pollution Control team on 01784 446251 for further advice and information before any work commences.
SUMMARY OF REASON FOR DECISION
You are advised that this application was determined by the Local Planning Authority with regard to the policies in the Councils Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, and was considered to comply with these policies. In particular the following policies were considered.
1. Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document:
EN 1, EN 2, LO 1
2. Saved Policy GB 1 from Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001
3. The material circumstances of the case, including site history, location and impact on amenities were considered.
4. It was considered that there would not be a significant impact upon the amenities of adjoining properties and the character and appearance of the area that would justify a refusal in this case.
PLANNING APPEALS
LIST OF APPEALS SUBMITTED BETWEEN 17 JULY AND 13 AUGUST 2015
Planning Inspectorate Address Description Appeal Application No. Ref. Start Date 14/02078/T56 APP/Z3635/W/15/Highways Land West Installation of a 15m high 22/07/2015 3129047 Side Of Worple Road telecommunications Roughly Opposite 33 street pole housing 6 no. & 35 Worple Road, antennas with 3 no. Staines-upon- associated equipment Thames cabinet
15/00142/HOU APP/Z3635/W/15/14 Comet Road Erection of two storey 28/07/2015 3106067 Stanwell side extension, single Staines-upon- storey front side and rear Thames extensions and TW19 7HP conversion of existing detached garage to habitable room.
APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 17 JULY AND 13 AUGUST 2015
Site Former Tennis Court, The Ridings, Sunbury
Planning 14/00322/FUL (Appeal A) and Application 14/02189/FUL (Appeal B) Numbers
Appeal APP/Z3635/W/14/3000993 (Appeal A) and Reference APP/Z3635/W/15/3009449
Inspector’s Appeal A – Dismissed Decision Appeal B - Allowed
Proposal Residential development providing 17 dwellings (comprising 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses with associated access, parking and landscaping (Appeal A) Residential development providing 25 dwellings, comprising 2 and 3 bedroom houses and 2 bedroom flats, with associated access, parking and landscaping. (Appeal B).
Reasons for APPEAL A Refusal 1. The proposals would provide inadequate affordable housing to
contribute towards meeting the needs of the Borough and the applicants have failed to adequately justify why 50% of affordable housing cannot be provided on site. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies SP6 and EN4 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.
2. The proposals fail to provide an adequate number of small dwellings to meet the Council's housing needs, contrary to policy HO4 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.
3. The proposed development fails to pay sufficient regard to, and would have an unacceptable and impact on, the existing trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, contrary to policy EN7 of the CS&P DPD.
4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Highway Authority that adequate mitigation measures have been provided to address the potential conflict between pedestrian and vehicle movements in The Ridings, contrary to Policies SP7 and CC2 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.
5. The proposed development by virtue of its height and siting would have poor relationship with adjoining properties resulting in overlooking, and having an overbearing effect on them, contrary to Policy EN 1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies DPD.
Appeal B
1. The proposals by reason of the design, scale, siting and layout would represent an overdevelopment of the site with poor quality amenity space provision for the flats and hard standing which dominates the site. This would result in a development out of character with neighbouring developments and result in poor visual amenity of the locality. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies SP6 and EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.
2. The proposed development fails to pay sufficient regard to, and would have an unacceptable impact on the existing trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, contrary to policy EN7 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.
Inspector’s The Inspector found that the retention of the site as open space Comments was not justified as it is not needed for sport and recreational purposes. In regards to the character and appearance, he noted that densities would not be inherently unacceptable and would make efficient use of the land. He considered that garden areas for the houses would be adequate. In terms of highway safety he stated that the proposals would not lead to a significant increase in traffic movements, and the area was already congested but the
proposals would not materially worsen congestion. He concluded that the advice within Manual for Streets 2 about the provision of footways on both sides of the highway should be applicable here, in order to ‘…provide a safe route into the development and encourage walking as a mode of travel.’
Appeal A would be unacceptable in relation to affordable housing provision and inappropriate housing mix, having regard to the needs of the community and the characteristic of the area
In regards to Appeal B he noted that it would have an acceptable impact on protected trees on the site, the 3 storey block of flats would have a reasonable amount of space on 3 sides and not appear cramped. He also considered that the scale would not appear out of character and the extent of hardstanding acceptable. He considered that the proposed flats would provide a suitable living environment for future occupants. He concluded that ‘ Appeal B would provide housing including much need affordable homes, in a sustainable location and would have economic benefits…The proposal would achieve sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF.’
Site Clock Bungalow, 191 Ashford Road, Laleham, Staines-upon- Thames
Planning 14/01689/HOU Application Numbers
Appeal APP/Z3635/W/15/3006469 Reference
Inspector’s Appeal Allowed. Decision Appellant’s Application for Costs Refused.
Proposal Raising of part of existing roof to provide first floor accommodation, single storey side extension and demolition of existing pool house.
Reasons for The proposed development by virtue of its size and the existing Refusal extensions on the site is considered to result in a disproportionate addition above and beyond the size of the original dwellinghouse and is therefore inappropriate development with the Green Belt. As such, it is contrary to Policy EN2 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) and guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Inspector’s The proposal involved the removal of a substantial pool house Comments located in the garden of the dwellinghouse to compensate for the
additional development within the Green Belt. The Inspector concluded that due to the proximity of the dwelling to the pool house, it could be regarded as being part of the dwelling rather than as an outbuilding. As such its removal would mean that there would be a net reduction in footprint as a result of the extension. In terms of the increase in ridge height, the Inspector considered that the 1m increase was a modest increase that would not significantly change the scale of the original building nor constitute a disproportionate addition. As such the extensions were not inappropriate. In terms of openness the Inspector considered that there would only be a limited effect on the openness of the Green Belt, particularly as the application building, even when extended, would be subordinate to the large two storey buildings on neighbouring plots. Therefore the proposal would not cause material harm to the Green Belt.
In terms of costs, the Inspector concluded that it was not demonstrated that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense had occurred.
Site Grass verge on northern side of Staines Road East, Stockfield, Sunbury on Thames, TW16 5PU Planning 14/01754/T56 Application Numbers
Appeal APP/Z3635/W/15/3010445 Reference
Inspector’s Appeal Dismissed. Decision
Proposal Installation of 15m dual user monopole with associated equipment cabinets.
Reasons for The proposed telecommunications mast and associated cabinet Refusal would by reason of their siting on an open area of land and their height and bulk appear visually intrusive and detrimental to the character of the street scene and would also endanger users of the public highway. The proposal therefore does not comply with Policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009).
Inspector’s The Inspector considered that the grass verge as a whole makes Comments a positive contribution to the appearance of the area and the setting of the racecourse in particular. The siting of the monopole adjacent to the back edge of the pavement would be highly prominent and would be an unacceptably intrusive feature in the street scene. The surrounding trees and street furniture do not
compensate for the substantial monopole which the Inspector concluded would appear bulky and out of scale with its surroundings.
In addition, the equipment cabinets, while taken individually are modest in size, in combination would increase the level of street clutter and would contribute to the harm and add weight to the Inspectors conclusion that the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area was detrimental.
In terms of highway safety, the County Highways Authority withdrew their reason for refusal during the process of the appeal. The Inspector did consider this aspect and was satisfied that the proposal would not hamper visibility nor be detrimental to highway safety.
Site J D Hall Estate Agents, 15 Ash Tree Court, Feltham Hill Road, Ashford
Planning 14/01984/ADV Application Numbers
Appeal APP/Z3635/W/15/3006469 Reference
Inspector’s Dismissed Decision
Proposal Installation of an internally illuminated fascia sign (retrospective)
Reasons for The proposed advertisement in terms of its design, scale and Refusal location is considered to be poorly placed and will be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Inspector’s The Inspector considered that the main issue was the effect on the Comments visual amenity of the area. Although the immediate surroundings of the advertisement is an busy junction with a mix of commercial and resident premises on both side, the advertisement is not on a building that is part of a parade of shops and other commercial uses, but on the ground floor frontage of a detached building which apart from the applicants business, is a block of flats on a prominent corner. Its existing positon is on top of a canopy that extends noticeably forward of the front wall. The design is clearly higher than main signage in an arrangement that increases the signs prominence, especially when illuminated.
The Inspector concluded that the sign appears unduly intrusive,
both in relation to the residential block itself and the street scene and has an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area contrary to the NPPF.
Site 83 Groveley Road, Sunbury On Thames
Planning 14/01392/FUL Application Numbers
Appeal APP/Z3635/W/15/3011467 Reference
Inspector’s Dismissed Decision
Proposal Erection of two storey 2 bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory on no. 83 Groveley Road.
Reasons for The proposed new dwelling, by virtue of its scale, proportions, Refusal narrow street frontage and position would appear as a cramped form of development out of keeping with the character of the area and appear as an incongruous form of development. It would not respect the character of the area which is made up of semi- detached dwellings with large gaps in between. The proposal would therefore not comply with Policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (February 2009) and the Councils Supplementary Planning Document for the Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development (April 2011).
Inspector’s The Inspector considered that the main issue was the effect on the Comments character and appearance of the area. The scheme sought to address previous Inspectors comments by increasing separation between the proposed dwelling and the adjoining dwellings. The Inspector in this case however considered due to its narrow frontage it would be significantly narrower than the properties on either side and would also have an uncharacteristically deep plan form, which would give an unduly cramped appearance. The Inspector also considered the parking arrangement would add further weight to the site appearing overdeveloped.
The Inspector concluded that the proposed dwelling would be incongruous when viewed in relation to the dwellings on the northern side of Groveley Road, and the scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.
FUTURE HEARING / INQUIRY DATES
Proposal Council Type of Site Case Date Ref. Appeal Officer 14/00214/ Hearing 7 Maxwell The erection of a PT/RJ 29/09/2015 ENF Road, Ashford detached blockwork building on land to the north of the dwelling house.