Agenda item

Ward

 

Shepperton Town

 

Proposal

 

The erection of an additional storey and rear extension to create 14 total residential units (including the re-configuration of 6 existing units) and internal alterations to Unit C on the ground floor.

 

Recommendation

 

Grant planning permission subject to conditions, as set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

 

 

Description:

 

Additional Information:

 

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) re-advertised amended plans and a revised address on 29 September 2025.  The LPA has received 9 additional letters of representation, which in addition to the comments raised in the letters of representation summarised in paragraph 5.1 of the committee report, raise the following issues:

 

1.    Concerns over the shortfall in amenity space, the loss of existing amenity space, and concerns over the justification for the shortfall.

2.    Policy EN1 is breached, and the proposed density is therefore unacceptable under policy HO5.

3.    Concerns over internal daylight, outlook and living conditions for future occupiers.

4.    The layout of the car park is not safe and suitable for all users.

5.    The scheme is contrary to the Council’s policies.

6.    The harms of the scheme outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF as a whole under paragraph 11.

7.    Concerns over a 45% shortfall in parking provision and highway safety.

8.    The loss of employment space is contrary to policy EM1 and TC3.

9.    Concerns over the housing mix.

10.The officer’s report is inconsistent and selective in applying the relevant planning policies, fails to address material planning harms, and fails to maintain impartiality and public confidence.

11.Planning appeal APP/Z3635/D/25/3366506 has been misquoted, the link provided in the officer report is incorrect, and the Inspectors findings have been misrepresented in a misleading manner for a scheme that related to a minor domestic extension (Officer Note: The link to the appeal decision provided in the officer report did not work correctly – However, the appeal decision is at the time of writing, available to view on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The appeal was referenced to demonstrate that the SPD is guidance and not to compare two different schemes).

12.Concerns a shortfall in separation distance would set a precedent.

 

Paragraph 5 of the Executive Summary should refer to 15 car parking spaces.

 

The Environmental Health Officer has requested conditions and informatives relating to noise.  Officers do not consider that all of the requested conditions would meet the six tests for conditions set out in the NPPF.  It is recommended however that Condition 9 is replaced with the following:

 

Following construction of any groundwork and foundations, no construction of development above damp course level shall take place until a report is submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority which includes details and drawings demonstrating how 10% of the energy requirements generated by the development as a whole will be achieved utilising renewable energy methods and showing in detail the estimated sizing of each of thecontributing technologies to the overall percentage.  The detailed report shall identify how renewable energy, passive energy and efficiency measures will be generated and utilised for each of the proposed buildings to meet collectively the requirement for the scheme and will include details on noise omitted by air source heat humps including any mitigation measures.  The agreed measures shall be implemented with the construction of each building and thereafter retained.

 

A response has been received from Neighbourhood Services that does not raise objections but would wish for the site entrance to remain clear. In response, the LPA recommend the following Condition and Informative:

 

Condition 12. Prior to occupation, facilities within the curtilage of the site for the storage of refuse and recycling materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The agreed details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and retained thereafter

 

Reason:-. To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties and the appearance of the locality in accordance with policies SP6 and EN1 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

 

Informative 10. The applicant is advised that the entrance to the site should remain clear from any obstructions, including from vehicles, to ensure that waste and refuse vehicles can collect bins from the site

 

A further condition is also recommended as follows:

 

Condition 13. Prior to the occupation of the development, details of a scheme of the means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected.  The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building(s)/use is/are occupied.  Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as approved

 

Reason:-. To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties and the appearance of the locality in accordance with policies SP6 and EN1 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009.

 

Two further Informatives are also recommended:

 

11. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover to install dropped kerbs. www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/permits-andlicences/vehicle-crossovers-or-dropped-kerbs

 

12. The developer is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above conditions, the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.

 

 

Public Speaking:

 

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

 

1.      The proposed building is too high ad too close to 13 Manor Farm Avenue.

2.      The building separation should be 30m but in the plans the distance is only 17.5m.

3.      The BRE test independently carried out showed a reduction in daylight of over 30%.

4.      Habitable room within 13 Manor Farm Avenue would be overlooked by the new building.

5.      The bins for the 14 flats and businesses would be located right on the boundary of 13 Manor Farm Avenue, less than 2m from the kitchen/breakfast window of the property which we consider to be unhygienic, smelly, noisy and potentially to be a fire risk.

6.      The proposed building would only have 155sqm of amenity space which is less than a third of the minimum required.

7.      This is an overdevelopment for the plot.

 

 

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

 

1.      Pre-application advice was sought from the developer which informed the final design of the proposed development.

2.      The additional 8 flats are within the scope of Policy HO5 of the Council’s current Local Plan.

3.      The proposed building is a balanced and proportionate approach to development.

4.      The scheme has been designed to reflect the character and context of the surrounding area, ensuring that it does not constitute overdevelopment.

5.      There will not be any harmful impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties.

6.      The building would sit back approximately 18 metres from the adjacent boundary of 13 Manor Farm Avenue.

7.      Amendments have been put in place to ensure that there is no overlooking from the proposed amenity spaces/shared balconies to adjacent properties.

8.      The proposed development is not out of keeping with the existing character of the area and aligns with similar developments found in the surrounding area.

9.      The design responds sensitively to its setting, contributing positively to the ongoing development of the area.

10.  There were no objections from statutory consultees, including Highways and Drainage.

 

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.    The scale and height of surrounding buildings is not relevant

2.    The design of the existing flat resulted in windows being situation that avoided overlooking of surrounding buildings

3.    The top storey of the existing building serves as amenity space

4.    The proposed building has a lack of amenity space; the top storey cannot be deemed to be communal amenity space as it is only accessible to 3 flats

5.    Residents of surrounding properties are concerned about being overlooked resulting in lack of privacy

6.    There is a shortfall in the separation distance which may result in a precedent being set for future applications

 

 

Debate:

 

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

1.    The transport infrastructure is not reliable enough to see residents choose this over their cars

2.    The proposed building is overbearing

3.    Lack of sufficient parking spaces at the rear of the property

4.    Proposed development does not blend in with surrounding buildings and has no green areas

5.    The proposed building is more attractive than the one currently in situ

6.    Issues surrounding fire safety within the proposed building

7.    The proposed building provides disabled access

8.    Lack of public amenity space

 

Councillor Saliagopoulos requested a recorded vote

 

For	Councillor Burrell – 1 vote
Abstain	0 votes
Against	Councillors Bateson, Beatty, Beecher, Bhadye, Buck, Chandler, Geraci, Lee, Mooney, Nichols, Rutherford, Saliagopoulos, Gibson – 13 votes

 

The motion to approve the application FELL

 

It was proposed by Councillor Geraci and seconded by Councillor Bateson that the Local Planning Authority is minded to refuse the application as the proposed development represents overdevelopment of the site. It is considered to be overbearing in nature, will overlook neighbouring properties, not positively contribute to the street scene, will unacceptably increase the density of the area, contains a lack of amenity space and there is a lack of parking, under Policies EN1, CC3 and HO5 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, NPPF, the Council’s SPD on Residential Extensions and New Residential Developments 2011 and the Council’s Parking Standards SPG.

 

The Committee voted on the proposed motion as follows:

 

For -13

Abstain – 0

Against - 1

 

Decision:

 

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

 

The application represents overdevelopment of the site. It is considered to be overbearing in nature, will overlook neighbouring properties, not positively contribute to the street scene, will unacceptably increase the density of the area, contains a lack of amenity space and there is a lack of parking, under Policies EN1, CC3 and HO5 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, NPPF, the Council’s SPD on Residential Extensions and New Residential Developments 2011 and the Council’s Parking Standards SPG.