Agenda item

Ward

 

Shepperton Town

 

Proposal

 

Two-storey side extension to the commercial building

 

Recommendation

 

Approve the application subject to conditions as set out in the Recommendation Section (Paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)

 

 

Description:

 

Two-storey side extension to the commercial building

 

Additional Information:

 

Before the conditions were read out to the Committee they were advised that one letter of representation had been received raising concerns regarding Parking.

 

The following conditions are recommended:

 

13. No development shall take place until:

 

(i)            A comprehensive desk-top study, carried out to identify and evaluate all potential sources and impacts of land and/or groundwater contamination relevant to the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

(ii)          (ii) Where any such potential sources and impacts have been identified, a site investigation has been carried out to fully characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications. The site investigation shall not be commenced until the extent and methodology of the site investigation have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

 

(iii)          A written method statement for the remediation of land and/or groundwater contamination affecting the site shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of remediation. The method statement shall include an implementation timetable and monitoring proposals, and a remediation verification methodology.

 

The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved method statement, with no deviation from the statement without the express written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:- To protect the amenities of future occupiers and the environment from the effects of potentially harmful substances.

 

NOTE The requirements of the above Condition must be carried out in accordance with current best practice. The applicant is therefore advised to contact Spelthorne's Pollution Control team on 01784 446251 for further advice and information before any work commences.

 

In accordance with policies SP6 and EN15 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

 

14. Prior to the first use or occupation of the development, and on completion of the agreed contamination remediation works, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason:- To protect the amenities of future occupiers and the environment from the effects of potentially harmful substances.

 

NOTE The requirements of the above Condition must be carried out in accordance with current best practice. The applicant is therefore advised to contact Spelthorne's Pollution Control team on 01784 446251 for further advice and information before any work commences.

 

In accordance with policies SP6 and EN15 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

 

15. No construction of development above damp-proof course level shall take place until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water, to include roof drainage to be sealed at ground level, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

 

Reason:-This condition seeks to ensure the development does not cause an unacceptable risk to the groundwater. This is in line with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

The following additional informative is also recommended:

 

5. The applicant should be mindful not to create excessive dust emissions during demolition works, particularly where any asbestos containing materials may be present. A Refurbishment and Demolition asbestos survey is required to determine if asbestos containing materials are present. If removal of asbestos containing materials is required appropriate removal (without significant damage), handling and disposal by competent persons is required. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) have produced a guide to safe removal of asbestos containing materials, which outlines good practice, how to prepare and what equipment is needed, how to remove it and how to deal with the waste once removed. There is also information on the HSE website about how to comply with the regulations, including a more generic guide to working safely with asbestos - http://www.hse. gov.uk/asbestos

 

 

Public Speaking:

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Stuart Keasley spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    The proposed extension would add 187 square metres of office space that would equate to 12-18 additional workers. Available parking space would reduce from 26 to 22, 8 below the allowed maximum of 30 spaces.

 

2.    No parking controls on residential roads surrounding the application site the office workers will choose to park on these rather than take public transport.

 

3.    Building B is situated closer to residential roads than Building A. There are already issues with on-street parking by office workers and commuters and additional demand will only exacerbate the situation.

 

4.    Increase in the level of traffic and manoeuvring during peak hours poses a significant threat to pedestrians including children walking to and from school.

 

5.    There would be a loss of privacy for a number of residential properties surrounding the proposed application site:

 

a)    The proposed extension would have windows facing 4, and 6 Old Charlton Road and 13 Station Road,

 

b)    The Ground floor offices would see into a ground floor bedroom of 4 Old Charlton Road,

 

c)    The first floor offices would have direct line of sight into the ground floor bedroom on 4 and 6 Old Charlton Road and also 13 Station Road,

 

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Attewell spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    Terminal House was listed for sale with an auction house and marketed as a potential House of Multiple Occupation with 76 units, so concerns have been raised about potential future usage.

 

2.    Concerned about the developer splitting the units into different planning applications when it should have been considered as one application site.

 

3.    Numerous planning applications have previously been submitted for this site, some of which are still awaiting a decision.

 

 

Debate:

 

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

1.    The development would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area that would see an increase in on-street parking

2.    Further planning applications may be submitted for a change of use to residential units

3.    Not adequate off-street parking provided

4.    The application meets the parking provision for commercial use

5.    The application site is in a flood zone

6.    A number of properties would be overlooked and result in lack of privacy

7.    The building would need to be used for commercial purposes for at least two years before the developer could submit a change of use application

8.    There might be an operational impact on neighbouring properties if the businesses worked hours outside of the normal 9am to 5pm eg noise, light

9.    Cannot see any benefit to the local residents

10. An additional condition be added to prevent permitted development

11. Any additional applications received for this site should be brought to committee and not be decided under delegated authority

 

 

 

Councillor Saliagopoulos requested a recorded vote

 

For	Councillors Beecher, Buck, Burrell, Gibson – 4 votes
Against	Councillors Bateson, Bhadye, Chandler, Geraci, Lee, Mooney, Rutherford, Saliagopoulos – 8 votes
Abstain	Councillors Beatty. Nichols – 2 votes

 

The motion to approve the application FELL

 

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Councillor Mooney that the Local Planning Authority is minded to refuse the application as the extension is considered to have an overbearing impact and effect on the amenity of the neighbouring properties of 4 Old Charlton Road, 6 Old Charlton Road and 13 Station Road and would amount to an intensification of use under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.

 

The committee voted on the proposed motion as follows:

 

For – 12

Against – 1

Abstain - 1

 

Decision:

 

The motion to refuse the application was carried for the following reasons:

 

The extension is considered to have an overbearing impact and effect on the amenity of the neighbouring properties of 4 Old Charlton Road, 6 Old Charlton Road and 13 Station Road and would amount to an intensification of use under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.