Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2025 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2025 were approved as a correct record.

To receive any disclosures of interest from councillors under the Members’ Code of Conduct.

There were none.

To receive any declarations of interest from councillors under the Planning Code including contact with applicants/objectors.

Councillors Bateson, Beatty, Beecher, Buck, Burrell, Clarke, Gibson, Lee, Nichols, Rutherford and Woodward reported that they had received email correspondence in relation to application 25/00423/PAP but had not responded, maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

Councillor Howkins reported that she had received email correspondence in relation to application 25/00423/PAP but had not responded, and also made a visit to the site. In both instances she had maintained an impartial role, had not expressed any views and had kept an open mind.

As the Ward Councillor speaking on the application, Councillor Williams declared that he had received email correspondence in relation to application 25/00423/PAP and had also received a petition from residents opposing the application.

Ward

Staines

Proposal

Prior Approval notification for the erection of two floors of residential flats on top of the existing detached block of flats. The proposed third and fourth floor extension would consist of 4 apartments per floor with associated parking and refuse facilities.

Recommendation

Grant prior approval subject to conditions as set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

Description: Prior Approval notification for the erection of two floors of residential flats on top of the existing detached block of flats. The proposed third and fourth floor extension would consist of 4 apartments per floor with associated parking and refuse facilities.

Additional Information:

There was none.

Public Speaking:

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

1)    A petition against the development had obtained over 100 signatures

2)    Previous applications had been refused due to dominant features representing a negative contribution

3)    The proposed application will overlook residential property, whereas other similar properties which have been extended, overlook commercial property of main thoroughfare

4)    The application gives the wrong impression that this is a four storey development as the addition of two extra floors makes this a five storey development

5)    The proposed parking arrangement will take away the grassed area which is the only amenity the residents have

6)    Cars would be parked directly in front of peoples windows

7)    This proposal was causing considerable distress to existing occupants many  of whom have young children

8)    The top floor flats would be especially affected with the loss of the loft area

9)    Additional flats would necessitate a significant upgrade in the current drainage system

10) It was questioned whether the application had addressed the issue of flood risk

11) The current refuse bin location was already inadequate and frequently overflowing; the proposed site would be both insufficient for the additional 8 two-bedroom flats and inaccessible for collection lorries.

12) There was currently an excess of similar developments in the area

13) The proposed extension will have the impact of overlooking at least four existing properties with associated loss of light

The Principal Planning Officer clarified the reasons for refusal of the previously two submitted planning applications on the site.

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

1)    Structural plans confirmed that the building could support extra storeys

2)    The site was highly accessible, near the town centre, train station, bus stops, and local shops

3)    Nearby buildings were taller and the proposed 2 extra storeys which would fit the local character of the area

4)    Officers confirmed there would be no harm to neighbours or the area

5)    In relation to refuse, bin capacity will double and private collections will be arranged to prevent overflow.

6)    Historic images showed consistent parking availability at Maynard Court despite commuter pressures

7)    Flats were safe and though the car park was partly in a flood zone there was a robust drainage system and dry escape route.

8)    The application met planning policies and improved site issues.

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

1)     The purpose of this statement was to stand with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28/25

To note details of the Planning appeals submitted and decisions received between 20 March 2025 and 09 May 2025.

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 Planning Development Manager.

The Team Leader, Planning Development Management noted that application 24/01019/FUL (22 Sidney Road, Staines-upon-Thames TW18 4LX) had been allowed at appeal.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.

To note the details of future major planning applications.

The Planning Development Manager submitted a report outlining major applications that may be brought before the Planning Committee for determination.

Resolved that the report of the Planning Development Manager be received and noted.