Planning Appeals Received

27 November 2012 - 18 December 2012

WINDSOR RURAL

The appeals listed below have been received by the Council and will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate. Further information on planning appeals can be found at www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk Should you wish to make comments in connection with an appeal, please use the PIns reference number and write to the relevant address, shown below.

Enforcement appeals: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/26 Hawk, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Other appeals: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/15, Eagle, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Parish/Ward: Horton Parish Appeal Ref.: 12/60099/REF Planning Ref.: 12/02236/FULL PIns Ref.: APP/T0355/D/12/2187657 Date Received: 27 November 2012 Comments Due: Not Applicable Type: Refusal Appeal Type: Householder Description: First floor rear extension, with juliette balconies. Raising height of soil and vent pipes. Location: 82 Coppermill Road Wraysbury Staines TW19 5NS Appellant: Mrs C Santi 82 Coppermill Road Wraysbury Staines TW19 5NS

Parish/Ward: Parish Appeal Ref.: 12/60100/REF Planning 12/01490/FULL PIns APP/T0355/A/12/2186964 Ref.: Ref.: Date 29 November 2012 Comments Due: 10 January 2013 Received: Type: Refusal Appeal Type: Written Representation Description: Erection of 6 x 3 bedroom flats together with garages and a parking court following demolition of the existing building Location: The Little House Charters Road Sunningdale Ascot SL5 9QF Appellant: Kebbell Homes c/o Agent: Mr Douglas Bond - Woolf Bond Planning The Mitfords Basingstoke Road Three Mile Cross Reading RG7 1AT

Parish/Ward: Wraysbury Parish Appeal Ref.: 12/60102/ENF Enforcement 12/00711/ENF PIns APP/T0355/C/12/2187428 Ref.: Ref.: Date 4 December 2012 Comments Due: 15 January 2013 Received: Type: Enforcement Appeal Appeal Type: Written Representation Description: Appeal against the Enforcement Notice: Without planning permission the erection of brick piers and metal gates. Location: Street Record Lammas Drive Staines Appellant: Mr Brett Hughes c/o Agent: Mr Philip Gratton Gratton Planning Services Ltd Barn Bank Vanity Close Oulton Stone Staffordshire ST15 8TZ

Parish/Ward: Parish Appeal Ref.: 12/60104/REF Planning Ref.: 12/01441/FULL PIns APP/T0355/A/12/2187786 Ref.: Date 10 December 2012 Comments Due: 21 January 2013 Received: Type: Refusal Appeal Type: Hearing Description: 2 x 4 bed dwellings with associated landscaping and car parking Location: Halstead House Upper Village Road Ascot SL5 7AG Appellant: Mr And Mrs Fry c/o Agent: Ms N Broderick NMB Planning Ltd 124 Horton Road SL3

27

Appeal Decision Report

29 November 2012 - 18 December 2012

WINDSOR RURAL

Appeal Ref.: 12/60039/NONDET Planning 11/03544/FULL PIns APP/T0355/A/12/2175482 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Larkwood Management Ltd c/o Agent: Mr Christopher Frost - ASP Old Bank Chambers Road Crowborough TN6 2TT Decision Committee Officer Would Have Refused Type: Recommendation: Description: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 64 bedroom hotel with associated parking, access, landscaping and riverside improvements Location: Shepperton Recovery Services Bell Weir Garage And Engineering Co 2 Wraysbury Road Staines TW19 6HE Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 7 December 2012 Decision:

Main Issue: The Inspector considered that the proposed development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, and that other considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm that he identified in the decision. The decision went on to find that there are no very special circumstances that would justify the development. In reaching this decision, the following additional points were considered: (i) Given the nature of the proposed development, the proposal was not considered to prejudice the vitality of town centres. However; (ii) The scale of the building and the extent of site coverage would dominate the area, and while the proposed hotel would be an improvement in some respects, this could equally be achieved by an appropriate development on a more modest scale. (iii) The proposal would be likely to result in additional traffic and parking in Bell Weir Close and other nearby residential roads, affecting their character and leading to inconvenience and disturbance to residents due to there being no dedicated provision for servicing and only limited space for turning within the site; increased parking demand arising from the proposed availability of the hotel restaurant to the general public; the relative lack of public transport; and the ‘somewhat contrived arrangement’ provided by the mechanised parking system to stack cars on top of each other within the basement. (iv) With regard to flood risk, while the Inspector shared the Council’s concerns regarding the identified evacuation route he considered that the alternatives available, particularly remaining in the hotel, would make the risk to guests and staff negligible. He was therefore satisfied that the requirements of Policy F1 would be met. The decision also referred to the appellant’s reliance on the National Planning Policy Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. While the Framework states that development in accordance with the development plan should be approved, this proposal was not in accordance with the Local Plan. The adverse effects of the proposed development would outweigh the benefits, and the Framework indicates that, in the absence of very special circumstances to justify it, inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be allowed.

28

Appeal Ref.: 12/60059/REF Planning 12/00412/FULL PIns APP/T0355/A/12/2178577 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr Stephen Craig - Burwood Developments Ltd c/o Agent: Mr Oliver Tyler - Arktec Ltd 1 Farnham Road Guildford GU2 4RG Decision Delegated Officer Refuse Type: Recommendation: Description: Erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings with associated off road parking, access and landscaping following demolition of existing pair of attached dwellings. Location: 22 - 24 Cromwell Road Ascot Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 5 December 2012 Decision:

Main Issue: The Inspector considered that the proposed houses would give the development a cramped appearance, which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Appeal Ref.: 12/60088/REF Planning 12/02094/FULL PIns APP/T0355/D/12/2185217 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mr Michael Schulz c/o Agent: Richard Goldsbrough - Richard Goldsbrough Ltd 7 Fox Covert Close Ascot SL5 9PA Decision Delegated Officer Refuse Type: Recommendation: Description: Construction of a detached double garage, new side entrance gate and pier. Re-surface and extend driveway. Location: Rosewood Cottage Burleigh Road Ascot SL5 7LD Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 4 December 2012 Decision:

Main Issue: The Inspector considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character of the area, due to the impact on the trees.

Appeal Ref.: 12/60092/REF Planning 12/01454/FULL PIns APP/T0355/D/12/2185294 Ref.: Ref.: Appellant: Mrs Renata Figueira c/o Agent: Mr Robert Kennedy Waterloo Road Berkshire Developments Ltd The Barn Wokingham RG40 3BY Decision Delegated Officer Refuse Type: Recommendation: Description: Detached single storey timber outbuilding (retrospective) Location: 8 Dawn Redwood Close Horton Slough SL3 9QD Appeal Dismissed Decision Date: 30 November 2012 Decision:

Main Issue: The Inspector concluded that appeal scheme was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (disproportionate addition) and LP Policies GB1 and GB2.

29 Appeal Ref.: 12/60098/REF Planning Ref.: 12/01884/FULL PIns APP/T0355/D/12/21860 Ref.: 41 Appellant: Mrs Neena Walia c/o Agent: Mr Chris Ward 3 South Street Titchfield Fareham Hampshire PO14 4DL Decision Type: Delegated Officer Refuse Recommendation: Description: Detached outbuilding (retrospective) Location: 52 Wraysbury Road Staines TW19 6HA Appeal Allowed Decision Date: 12 December 2012 Decision:

Main Issue: The Inspector considered that the building does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt (they consider it can be regarded as an extension); nor did they not consider that the building had a significant effect on the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, they concluded that the building is a floodable structure, and so should not counted as GCA, and saw no serious conflict with Policy F1.

30