Date of issue: 9th January 2009 MEETING PLANNING …€¦ · P/10864/002 Former Heathrow Cold...

Date of issue: 9th January 2009

MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE Councillors Dodds (Chair), Dale-Gough, A S Dhaliwal,

Finn, MacIsaac, Pantelic, Plimmer, Rasib and Swindlehurst

DATE AND TIME: TUESDAY, 20TH JANUARY, 2009 AT 6.30 PM VENUE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, BATH ROAD,

SLOUGH DEMOCRATIC SERVICES OFFICER: (for all enquiries)

TERESA CLARK 01753 875018

NOTICE OF MEETING

You are requested to attend the above Meeting at the time and date indicated to deal with the business set out in the following agenda.

RUTH BAGLEY Chief Executive

NOTE TO MEMBERS This meeting is an approved duty for the payment of travel expenses.

AGENDA

PART 1

AGENDA

ITEM REPORT TITLE PAGE WARD

Apologies for absence.

AGENDA


CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

1. Declaration of Interest

(Members are reminded of their duty to declare personal and personal prejudicial interests in matters coming before this meeting as set out in the Local Code of Conduct).

2. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 22nd December 2008

1 - 4 All

3. Human Rights Act Statement

5 - 6 All

SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE BOROUGH

4. P/00471/014- Former Pumping Station, 57, Chalvey Road East, Slough

7 - 22 Chalvey

PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE BOROUGH

5. P/11797/005- 37-39, London Road, Slough

23 - 42 Kedermister

6. P/07482/007- 38, Harrow Road, Slough

43 - 52 Kedermister

7. P/09398/003- 68, Talbot Avenue, Slough

53 - 60 Langley St Mary's

8. P/13593/005- 65, London Road, Slough

61 - 68 Kedermister

9. P/14467/000- 42, Park Lane, Slough

69 - 76 Upton

MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS

10. Update on performance regarding speed of determination of Planning Applications and staffing arrangements

77 - 82 All

11. Planning Appeal Decisions

83 - 84 All

12. Authorised Enforcements and Prosecutions

85 - 98 All

AGENDA


Press and Public

You are welcome to attend this meeting which is open to the press and public, as an observer. You will however be asked to leave before the Committee considers any items in the Part II agenda. Special facilities may be made available for disabled or non-English speaking persons. Please contact the Democratic Services Officer shown above for further details.

This page is intentionally left blank

Planning Committee – Meeting held on Monday, 22nd December, 2008.

Present:- Councillors Rasib (Vice-Chair in the Chair), A S Dhaliwal, Finn (arrived 6.33 p.m.), MacIsaac, Pantelic, Plimmer (arrived 6.37 p.m.) and Swindlehurst

Also present under Rule 30:- Councillors Bains

Apologies for Absence:- Councillors Dodds and Dale-Gough

PART 1

48. Declarations of Interest

None.

49. Minutes The minutes of the meeting held on 18th November, 2008 were approved as a correct record.

50. Planning Applications Oral representations were made to the Committee by Members prior to the planning applications being determined by the Committee as follows:- P/14452/000 – 45 Courtlands Avenue, Slough – A Ward Member addressed the Committee. With the agreement of the Chair the order of business was varied to ensure that applications where local Members had indicated a wish to address the Committee were taken first. Details were tabled in the amendment sheet of alterations and amendments received to applications since the agenda was circulated together with further representations and/or petitions received. Resolved - That the following decisions be taken in respect of the planning

applications set out below subject to the information including conditions and informatives, set out in the report of the Head of Planning and Strategic Policy and the amendment sheet circulated at the meeting and subject to any further amendments and conditions agreed by the Committee as indicated below.

Application No

Proposed Development Decision

P/14452/000 45, Courtlands Avenue, Slough:

Erection of a single storey side to rear extension with false pitched roof (flat at the back) and front porch with lean to roof.

Delegated to HPSP *

AGENDA ITEM 2

Page 1

Planning Committee - 22.12.08

* (In the course of debate on the above application (Officer’s recommendation was refusal), it was moved by Cllr Swindlehurst and seconded by Cllr MacIsaac, that the application be delegated to the HPSP to allow further amendments to the scheme to be considered. Members voted on the proposal and it was approved unanimously. Councillors Finn and Plimmer did not take park in the debate or vote on the application as they were absent from the meeting when the planning application was introduced).

P/03953/003 Former Western House School, Brook Path, Lower Cippenham Lane, Slough: Erection of 65 dwellings with associated parking, access and landscaping. (access from Brook Path and Mallard Drive).

Delegated to HPSP for S106

P/02631/012 Langley Academy, Langley Road, Slough, Berkshire: Variation of condition nos. 4, 6, 7, 11 and 23 of planning permission for new school dated 07/08/2006 reference no. p/02631/011: Variation of condition no. 4 (landscaping) to allow for a playground to be constructed and for the contractors compound to remain as a staff car park until March 2009. Variation of condition no. 6 (access) to delay completion of the access until March 2009 and provide a pedestrian access to the school grounds on Green Drive. Variation of condition no. 7 (internal roads etc) to delay completion of the internal access road and parking until March 2009. Variation of

Delegated to HPSP

Page 2


condition no. 11 (rear access) to allow the temporary rear access onto Trelawney Avenue to remain open until March 2009 for school staff and deliveries only. Variation of condition no. 23 (off site pedestrian crossing) to delay completion of the crossing on Langley Road until March 2009.

P/10864/002 Former Heathrow Cold Store, Lakeside Industrial Estate, Lakeside Road, Colnbrook, Slough: Change of use of existing building from cold store/warehouse (use class B8) to food preparation and processing, logistics and distribution centre within class B2 including construction of mezzanine floor. refurbishment of existing office building and demolition of existing vehicle maintenance unit. construction of decked car park (two levels), reconfiguration of at grade car park, together with access, servicing and landscaping.

Delegated to HPSP for S106

51. Local Development Framework – Annual Monitoring Report 2008

The Head of Strategic Planning and Policy introduced a report to obtain Members approval of the of the Annual Monitoring Report 2008 for submission to the Secretary of State. Members were advised that this was the fourth annual report that had been produced and it provided detail such as challenges facing the area and progress on the preparation of the Local Development Scheme (LDS). It was noted that the Monitoring Report was required to review the planning policies that were being used in 2007 and 2008 and that all the requested Slough Local Plan Policies had been saved. The Officer advised that the monitoring report would identify whether there were any lessons to be learned from appeal decisions and it was noted that 36 % of appeals were allowed. It was accepted that there was a need to review and update the guidelines for residential extensions.

Page 3


The report showed that 849 dwellings were completed in Slough and there were a total of 2,632 dwellings with planning permission and a further 886 soft commitments. 98% of dwellings completed in 2007/2008 were on brownfield sites and 92% of these were flats, highlighting the importance of the Core Strategy policy to ensure that new residential development outside of the town centre would largely consist of family housing. In future years the Core Strategy’s performance would be monitored against the new Sustainability Appraisal Objectives and Indicators. Resolved- That the Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring

Report 2008 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State.

52. Planning Appeal Decisions

The Committee noted the receipt of several recent planning appeal decisions. Resolved - That the report be noted.

53. Authorised Enforcements and Prosecutions The Committee noted the status of various ongoing enforcement and prosecution cases. Resolved - That the report be noted.

Chair

(Note: The Meeting opened at 6.30 pm and closed at 7.10 pm)

Page 4

Human Rights Act Statement

The Human Rights Act 1998 was brought into force in this country on 2nd

October

2000, and it will now, subject to certain expectations, be directly unlawful for a public

authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right. In particular

Article 8 (Respect for Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Peaceful

Enjoyment of Property) apply to planning decisions. When a planning decision is to

be made, however, there is further provision that a public authority must take into

account the public interest. In the vast majority of cases existing planning law has for

many years demanded a balancing exercise between private rights and public interest,

and therefore much of this authority's decision making will continue to take into

account this balance.

The Human Rights Act 1998 will not be referred to in the Officers Report for

individual applications beyond this general statement, unless there are exceptional

circumstances which demand more careful and sensitive consideration of Human

Rights issues.

Please note the Ordnance Survey Maps for each of the planning applications are not to

scale and measurements should not be taken from them. They are provided to show

the location of the application sites.

CLU / CLUD Certificate of Lawful Use / Development

GOSE Government Office for the South East

HPSP Head of Planning and Strategic Policy

S106 Section 106 Planning Legal Agreement

SPZ Simplified Planning Zone

TPO Tree Preservation Order

USE CLASSES – Principal uses A1 Retail Shop

A2 Financial & Professional Services

A3 Restaurants & Cafes

A4 Drinking Establishments

A5 Hot Food Takeaways

B1 (a) Offices

B1 (b) Research & Development

B1 (c ) Light Industrial

B2 General Industrial

B8 Warehouse, Storage & Distribution

C1 Hotel, Guest House

C2 Residential Institutions

C3 Dwellinghouse

D1 Non Residential Institutions

D2 Assembly & Leisure

OFFICER ABBREVIATIONS DS David Scourfield

WM Wesley McCarthy

RS Reena Sharma

EW Edward Wilson

CS Chris Smyth

RK Roger Kirkham

HA Howard Albertini

SF Sam Fowler

SG Sarah Gambitsis

MR Mark Rowntree

AM Ann Mead

FI Fariba Ismat

PS Paul Stimpson

PT Phillip Taylor

AGENDA ITEM 3

Page 5

20th January 2009 Slough Borough Council Planning Committee

Applic. No: P/00471/014

Registration

Date:

23-Oct-

2008

Ward: Chalvey

Officer: Mr. W.

McCarth

y

Applic type:

13 week date: Major

22nd January 2009

Applicant: Patrick Ruddy Homes Ltd

Agent: Heritage & Architecture 63, Almond Avenue, Ealing, London, W5 4AD

Location: Former Pumping Station, 57, Chalvey Road East, Slough, SL1 2LP

Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PETROL FILLING STATION AND

ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

THREE STOREY BUILDING PLUS ADDITIONAL MANSARD

LEVEL TO PROVIDE FOUR NO. THREE-BEDROOM, FIVE NO.

TWO-BEDROOM AND TWENTY NINE NO. ONE BEDROOM

FLATS, WITH BASEMENT CAR PARK FOR THIRTY EIGHT NO.

CARS (OUTLINE)

Recommendation: Refuse

AGENDA ITEM 4

Page 7


P/00471/014

1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

1.1 This is an Outline application for the redevelopment of the vacant petrol station for a residential development, consisting of 38no. flats.

1.2 Having regards to the Policies contained within national planning policy guidance and local planning policies contained within the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy and the Adopted Local Plan, it is considered the proposal should be refused for the following reasons given in the report.

PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal

2.1

This is an application for outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, for the demolition of existing petrol filling station and associated structures and the construction of a three storey building plus additional mansard level to provide four no. three-bedroom, five no. two-bedroom and twenty nine no. one bedroom flats, with basement car park for thirty eight no. cars.

2.2 The proposal will see the loss of approximately 0.14ha of a Sui Generis (Petrol Filling Station) use from the site and replace it with a residential development.

2.3 The indicative design of the proposal is essentially a four storey building, of which the top two storeys are a series of mansard roofs, the topmost one being recessed from the sides by 3.8m. Access to the flats will be via a main lobby entrance on the ground floor.

2.4 Amenity space is provided in the form of a “communal garden area” located at the rear of the site at first floor level. The Communal garden is approximately 116m² in floor area. It is also indicated that “private garden” of 50m² each for the proposed 4no. three-bedroom flats are proposed at ground floor, to the side and rear of the proposed dwelling.

2.5 Provision of 38 Car Parks has been allocated within the basement level, access to which will be from Chalvey Road East.

2.7 This application has been submitted following two previous refusals.

3.0 Application Site

3.1 The application site is currently a disused petrol filling station with an

Page 8


associated A1 shop. The site has an area of 0.14 ha and is bounded on the North, East and West by two storey semi-detached residential dwellings. To the South of the site is Chalvey Road East, from which the site is accessed.

3.2

On the other side of Chalvey Road East directly to the South is a series of detached dwellings, whilst further to the South East are several three storey blocks of flats that were erected in 1996 (P/00830/009) as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of an area designated in the local plan for higher density residential.

3.3 Further East along Chalvey Road East the buildings become bulkier and greater in height, culminating in the redeveloped South Bucks site. Whilst the area around the application site and the built environment to West is predominantly two storey residential.

4.0 Site History

4.1 There are several historical applications on the site that relate to the use of the site as a Service Station; however these are not particularly relevant to this application. The last application submitted for the site is relevant however, being a similar application for the redevelopment of the site: P/00471/012 – Outline application for the erection of 5 no. retail units, 8 no. two bedroom flats and 32 no. one bedroom flats. Refused on 22/11/05 P/00471/013 - Demolition of existing petrol station, associated building, structures and forecourt and erection of a three storey building with mansard roof and additional recessed roof to provide 8 no. two bedroom flats and 30 no. one bedroom flats on upper floors and five commercial units on ground floor, with basement car parking for 38 no. cars and 38 no. bicycles with off street servicing (outline). Refused on 15/01/2008

5.0 Neighbour Notification

5.1 The following neighbours were consulted: 32, 34, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 55 Chalvey Road East; 27-36 (all) Chalvey Gardens; 44-72 (all) Botham Drive; and 157, 159, 161 & 163 The Crescent. A Site Notice was also placed on site and a Press Notice has been issued in the local press.

Page 9


No objections have been received by the Council at the time of writing the report, although two neighbours verbally confirmed that objection letters have been submitted.

6.0 Consultation

6.1 Highways:

6.1.1 Footway fronting site: The existing adopted footway fronting the site varies between 2.4 and 1.7m in width. The applicant has proposed widening this footway to a uniform 2.5m in width which is welcomed.

6.1.2 Access to and basement car park: In order to give priority to pedestrians, a crossover will need to be provided as means of access and not a bell mouth. However, the crossover will need to be constructed to carriageway standards. Undertakers’ mains and services will need to be lowered to a cover depth of 600mm. However the new access to the basement car park must provide the 2.4m x 43m sight line requirement in both directions measured to the north side of Chalvey Road East. As the lay by has now been removed from the previous application these sight lines are provided. Street lighting modifications will be required to light the new access and proposed footway. No gates are proposed to the basement car park.

6.1.3 Basement car park: The basement car park must be designed in accordance with The Institution of Structural Engineers publication “Design Recommendations for Multi-storey and Underground Car Parks 2002- 3rd Edition” to ensure it will operate safety and provide unimpeded ingress and egress for the specified number of parking bays. In order to demonstrate this it is necessary to submit a dimensioned car park layout for approval. This requirement should not be made as a planning condition for approval. The following areas require revising/confirming -

I. Minimum headroom not allowing for intrusive traffic calming to be 2.10m minimum (2.0m proposed).

II. Although the initial section of the ramp is 4.8m wide (including for the loading bay), the ramp beyond is only 4.1m wide. This is too narrow to allow two cars to pass one another on a radius, the ramp needs widening with tracking drawings provided by WSP to ensure the ramp can allow two “medium” sized cars to pass one another.

III. The aisle width needs widening to 6m towards the northern end of the car park.

Page 10


IV. Distance from end of parking space(aisle) to edge of column

0.46m min 0.8-1.0m desirable (fig 4.2). V. Column projection into parking space of up 200mm permitted

(4.3.4).

The vents to the basement must be kept clear of the 2.5m wide adopted highway; this appears to be the case measuring from the submitted plans. Details on the vents at ground floor level must be provided to ensure the public using the front of the building are protected.

6.1.4 Servicing: The doors from the refuse store must be physically restrained from opening onto the access. Ideally the gates should slide open or open inwards. Drop kerbs must be provided where Eurobins are stored in a refuse store and collected by the refuse collection vehicle on the carriageway. The loading bay should be marked on the access in yellow road marking paint. 11.6m in width with a headroom clearance of 4.1m is acceptable. However when a service vehicle is parking in the loading bay it must not prevent ingress/egress to/from the basement car park for cars, obstruct the 2.4m x 43m sight lines and allow access to and from the refuse store.

6.1.5 Existing Highway: Redundant access points must be reinstated to standard footway construction. The applicant will need to enter into a section 106 agreement with Slough Borough Council, this s106 agreement will obligate the developer to enter into a section 278 agreement for the satisfactory implementation of the works identified in the highways schedule. The highways schedule includes:

I. Construction and dedication free of charge to the Council the 2.5m wide footway fronting the development.

II. Construction of new access.

III. Reinstatement of redundant access points to standard to footway construction.

IV. Installation of street lighting modifications.

V. Drainage connections.

6.1.6 General: Mindful of the above significant amendments, additional information and justification are required before this application could be supported. If the applicant considers that they can address the comments that have been made then additional information supplied

Page 11


would be considered. Alternatively, should you wish to determine this application as submitted then it would be recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons given.

6.2 Traffic:

6..2.1

It is notes that this application proposes the demolition of an existing PFS and the erection of 38 flats, comprising 29 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed units.

6.2.2 As concluded for the previously proposed scheme which provided 38 flats plus five A1 retail units the Transport Statement satisfactorily demonstrates that the proposed development will have the potential to reduce traffic generation levels associated with site in both the overall daily trips and AM and PM peak periods when compared to the former use. I do not therefore propose to raise and objection to this application on traffic generation and impact grounds.

6.2.3 From a car parking point of view, you will be aware that the site is included close to the Town Centre, but is outside of the Commercial Core. As such the Local Plan requires the following parking standards: 29 x 1 bed flats 1 space per dwelling 29 spaces 5 x 2 bed flats 1.75 spaces per dwelling 8.75 spaces 4 x 3 bed flats 1.75 spaces per dwelling 7 spaces Total 45 spaces

6.2.4 The development includes a vehicular access to a basement car park providing 38 car parking spaces. This equates to 1 car parking space per flat. This represents a shortfall of 7 car parking spaces. However as the development site is located within 15 minutes walk to Slough Town Centre, Slough Railway Station and Slough Bus Station in accordance with the flexible approach recommended in PPS3 a reduction of 7 parking spaces may well be difficult to resist, particularly as there are on street car parking restrictions in the area.

6.2.5 However the owners/tenants of this development must be excluded from obtaining permits for on street parking. Please secure this requirement through the s106 agreement.

6.2.6 The application proposes 38 cycle parking spaces for the residential aspect of the scheme which meets Local Plan requirements. However the cycle parking should be independently secured within the basement car park in accordance with the Council’s Cycle Parking guidance document.

6.2.7 The application has now removed the previously proposed lay-by fronting

Page 12


the development. This is a clear improvement over the previous scheme.

6.2.8 The existing PFS allowed for off road servicing and turning clear of the highway. The revised scheme now provides an off street loading bay which, subject to approval from highways, would appear adequate to serve this level of development. The management company of the building, once occupied, must ensure car parking does not take place on this loading bay by imposing suitable restrictions.

6.2.9 Mindful of the above it can be confirmed that no objections to this outline application from a traffic and road safety perspective is raised, subject to conditions.

6.3 Environmental Protection:

6.3.1 The Public Protection Services Unit has not objected to the proposal,

however have recommended a series of conditions to cater for issues such as:

• Odour

• Noise from equipment and operational activities

• Hours of deliveries and collections

• Demolition and construction phases

• Noise – residential

• Waste during demolition/construction; and

• On-site refuse storage.

6.5 Planning Policy:

Page 13


6.5.1 The Council’s Planning Policy Team stated on the previous application that the principle of residential development is supported, but it is considered that the proposal is a significant over development of the site, of a poor design, which is out of keeping with its surroundings.

6.5.2 The proposal involves developing 38 residential units (plus the commercial units) on 0.14 hectares. This represents a residential density of around 270 dwellings to the hectare. As a result it is contrary to Core Policy 1 (Spatial strategy) of the Submission Document of the Core Strategy which states that high density housing should be located in the appropriate parts of the town centre. This part of Chalvey Road East is not within the Commercial Core Area of the town centre as defined in the Local Plan Proposals Map or the indicative town centre area shown on the Core Strategy Key Diagram.

6.5.3 The development is an overdevelopment of the site and a very poor design contrary to Local Plan Policy EN1 (Standards of Design). It is also contrary to Policy 8 of the Core Strategy (Sustainability and the Environment) in that it does not respect the amenities of adjoining occupiers or reflect the street scene and the local distinctiveness of the area.

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 7.0 Policy Background

7.1 National Planning Policies:

Planning Policy Statements 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and 3 (Housing);

7.2 Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2006-2026) Core Policies 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8

7.3 Adopted Local Plan for Slough Policies H9, H10, H11, H13, H14, EN1, EN3 and T2.

8.0 Planning Considerations

8.1 This is an outline application where no issues other than the principle of development have been applied for consideration (although considerable detail has been submitted), leaving reserved matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance, Access and Landscaping. As such the application is assessed against the minimum requirements for an Outline Application as indicated in DCLG Circular 01/2006 of:

Page 14


• Use

• Amount of development

• Indicative layout

• Scale parameters

• Indicative access points

9.0 Previous application 9.1 The previous application has been refused for the following reasons:

I. The proposed development would adversely impact on the

character of the streetscene by reason of its excessive bulk and overdevelopment of the site, not in keeping with the prevailing scale of the surrounding built environment and contrary to PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing, and Policies H13 & EN1 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004).

II. The proposed development would adversely impact the amenity and privacy of adjoining neighbours by virtue of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of outlook due to the excessive bulk and mass of the proposed structure within close proximity of adjoining dwellings, contrary Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1): Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Housing, and Policies EN1& H13 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004).

III. The proposed development fails to provide a suitable level of Family Housing for development outside the Town Centre, contrary to PPS3 (Housing) and Core policy 4 (Type of Housing) of the Slough LDF, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Submission Document.

IV. The proposed development fails to provide adequate loading and unloading of service vehicles and poor access visibility to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety, contrary to PPG13: Transport and Core Policy 7 (Transport) of the Slough LDF, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Submission Document.

V. The proposed development provides an unsuitable intensification of commercial development within a residential setting, serving to infringe upon the viability of other designated commercial sites contrary to Policy S1 (Retail Hierarchy) of the adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004).

VI. The proposal fails to provide a suitable level of amenity space for the type of residential development proposed, resulting in a development which would be detrimental to the residential

Page 15


amenity of future occupiers. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy H14 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004).

9.2 In terms of assessing the current application it is considered appropriate

to determine whether the applicant has addressed the previous reasons for refusal.

10.0 Scale / Bulk / Overdevelopment

10.1 The current application has been reduced in height by removing one of the “roofs” that resulted in a five storey building for the previous application and removing the commercial floor at ground floor level. The applicant compares the application site with the approved block of flats (26 February 2007) at 26 Chalvey Road West, in terms of the scale and height. The last-mentioned site is however located at a prominent and busy junction, with the curved building forming a landmark feature at this intersection. The application site does not have the same context, being located between the two storey houses on the west and two-storey flats on the east. It is therefore considered that the proposed four-storey building would not be landmark building and should therefore be harmonious with the adjacent properties to the east and west.

10.2 An example of a large mansard roof building can be found at Churchill

House, which is located approximately 140m to the East of the site along Chalvey Road East. It is noted that when viewed from the application site and from the western side of Chalvey Road East, Churchill House relates in size to the larger and higher developments such as the former South Bucks site, located along Windsor Road. This same context does not occur with the application site, which is clearly physically separated from these taller buildings on all sides by the surrounding two storey residential dwellings.

10.3 The proposed development includes a density of 270 dwellings per hectare, which is contrary to the principles of Policy H10 of the Local Plan for Slough, which is re-iterated in Core Policy 4 of the Slough LDF. Although Policy H10 refers to a minimum density, it does state in the pre-amble that densities in excess of 200 dwellings per hectare should only be located in the Town Centre. The application site does not fall within the boundaries of the Town Centre as outlined in the Core Strategy and the proposal is therefore inappropriate in this location. Planning Policy Statement 3 states that Local Planning Authorities should develop housing density policies having regard to, amongst other things, the spatial vision and strategy for housing development in their area, including the level of housing demand and need and the availability of suitable land in the area.

Page 16


10.4 In summary, it is considered that the proposal is still unacceptable in terms of the scale, bulk and density. The applicant is drawing comparatives to developments that have been granted planning consent prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy and it is therefore considered that these examples should not be used as precedent to allow an unacceptable development. The Council has adopted a new policy stance in line with PPS3 guidance to concentrate high density development within the Town Centre, as designated in the Core Strategy and it is therefore considered that this proposal that falls outside the Town Centre is inconsistent with this policy. The proposal is therefore considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and of an unsuitable scale, bulk and density, contrary to Local Plan Policy EN1 and H13. It is also contrary to the Slough LDF Core Policy 4 and 8, PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing) in that it does not

11.0 Impact on adjoining occupiers

11.1 The applicant has submitted a “permanent overshadowing study”, prepared by GIA, to illustrate that the proposed development would not result in an unreasonable loss of sunlight to the adjoining residential gardens. The GIA report concludes that the proposal would comply with the guidelines set by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in terms of loss of sunlight to residential gardens. The applicant did however not provide an assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development on the adjoining habitable room windows. The Council has therefore requested an independent assessment by BRE, to confirm the findings of the GIA report, as well as to assess the impact of the proposal on the adjoining habitable room windows. The findings of the report would be presented on the amendment sheets.

11.2 In terms of the loss of outlook, the north-eastern part of the building would breach the 45-degree line of sight from the properties at nos. 29 to 32Chakvey Gardens. It is considered that despite the reduction in the bulk of the proposed building, it would still have an over-bearing impact on the occupants of these dwellings due to the unreasonable loss of outlook, which is currently experienced by these occupiers.

11.3 The applicant argues that the increase in the distance between the rear

elevation of the proposed flats and the side boundary of no. 163 The Crescent from 8.3m to 11m, overcomes the reason for objection in terms of a loss of privacy for the occupiers of no. 163. This is based on the fact that a similar distance has been permitted for the redevelopment of the former South Bucks site. It must be pointed out that at the former South Bucks site, mature landscaping is found on the relevant boundary, compared to the proposed planting indicated on the application drawings for this application. The provision of the landscaping on the boundary with no. 163 to overcome the overlooking objection, would also nullify the

Page 17


finding of the GIA report that the development would result in an improvement in terms of overshadowing in the rear garden of this property. The proposed tree planting all along the northern boundary of the application site would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities enjoyed by the residents of no. 163 dwelling in their rear garden.

11.4 In conclusion it is considered that the current proposal has not fully addressed the previous reason for refusal. The proposal would therefore adversely impact on the amenity and privacy of adjoining neighbours by virtue of overlooking and loss of outlook, due to the excessive bulk and mass of the proposed structure within close proximity of adjoining dwellings, contrary Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1): Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Housing, and Policies EN1& H13 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004).

12.0 Type of housing 12.1 The proposed development upon the site will consist of 4no. three-

bedroom, 5no. two-bedroom flats and 29 no. one bedroom flats. The principle of the use of the site for residential is supported by the Council. Guidance given in PPS3 does however state that: ‘Developers should bring forward proposals from market housing which reflect demand and the profile of households requiring market housing, in order to sustain mixed communities’. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 2006 reveals that the majority of dwellings built in Slough in recent years have been flats and that many recent approvals have been for flats, not houses. The Berkshire Housing Market Assessment (Final Report v1.0 February 2007) concluded that there are a high proportion of flats within East Berkshire, concentrated mainly within Slough. There is a further concern for the sustainability of an increase in this form of development, and the future polarisation of type and size of dwellings in different authority areas within Berkshire.

12.2 The Housing Trajectory for Slough (2001 – 2026) as set out in Appendix 2 of the Core Strategy Document, shows that Slough is likely to meet its housing target by approximately 2016, further reinforcing the view that the true housing need lies not in housing numbers, but rather in housing type, that being the need for family housing rather than flats.

12.3 The Core Policy 1 (Spatial Strategy) of the LDF Core Strategy submission document states that high density housing should be located in the designated part of the town centre. This part of Chalvey Road East is not within the town centre area shown on the Core Strategy Key Diagram.

12.4 Additionally the type of residential development proposed is also contrary

Page 18


to Core Policy 4 (Type of Housing) of the LDF Core Strategy submission document. This policy advises that, amongst other things: ‘High density development should be located in the Slough Town Centre. In the urban areas outside the Town Centre, new residential development will predominately consist of family housing and be at a density related to the character of the surrounding area, the accessibility of the location, and the availability of existing and proposed local services, facilities and infrastructure Within existing suburban residential areas there will only be limited infilling which will consist of family houses that are designed to enhance the distinctive suburban character and identity of the area’.

12.5 Residential development upon a site such as this outside the Town Centre should consist of ‘family housing’ as defined in the LDF Core Strategy document. The definition of ‘Family Housing’ being: ‘A fully self contained dwelling (with a minimum floor area of 76m²) that has direct access to a private garden. Comprises a minimum of two bedrooms and may include detached and semi-detached dwellings and townhouses but not flats and maisonettes’ The proposal does include 4no. three-bedroom dwellings, which the applicant argues should be considered as family dwellings, with access to private amenity space of 50m². It is considered that these three-bedroom flats are wholly unacceptable in terms of the principles of PPS3 in providing good quality housing. The outlook from the habitable room windows from these units would vary between 2m to 5.2m from the boundary walls. This falls significantly short from the required 15m between primary and secondary elevations, in order to achieve acceptable outlook and living conditions within habitable rooms. The submitted GIA report did conveniently not illustrate what level of overshadowing the proposed building would have on the proposed amenity spaces allocated to the “family units” or the “communal garden”. It is considered that the proposed “family dwellings” would not comply with the requirement of PPS3 in terms of providing high quality housing, due to substandard living conditions that the occupiers of these dwellings would experience.

12.6 The applicant draws comparisons between the application site and the site at Lion House in Petersfield Avenue, which has been the subject of a recent appeal decision. The applicant incorrectly states that Petersfield Avenue is a cul-de-sac and that Chalvey Road East is “more urban” and “more heavily trafficked”, which makes it appropriate for a flatted development. The Planning Inspector did however make reference to the high density developments, which directly abuts Lion

Page 19


House. The Inspector concluded on the matter that the provision of flats on the Lion House site would relate to the adjoining high density developments, on a highly accessible site, within walking distance of the station and would therefore not be contrary to Core Policy 4. It is considered that the application site does not have the same setting and surroundings as the Lion House site and is once again not a comparable site. In summary, the development would provide three-bedroom dwellings, which would be inappropriate as family dwellings, as well as providing a form of residential accommodation that is contrary to the principles of PPS3 and LDF Core Policy 4.

13.0 On site servicing

13.1 The Council’s Traffic Engineer indicated that the proposal includes sufficient on-site servicing, which is contradicted by the Highway Engineers comments. Clarification on the matter would be provided on the amendment sheets.

14.0 Commercial units 14.1 The current application does not include commercial units at ground floor

level and the reason in terms of the intensification on site due to the commercial element has been satisfactory addressed.

13.0 Amenity space provision

13.1 It has been outlined in section 12.5 that the proposed amenity space would not be considered to be acceptable in terms of the quality of the amenity space, due to the significant overshadowing that it would experience from the proposed building. In order to protect the privacy of the adjoining occupiers the applicant has indicated that a 2m high perimeter glass wall would be constructed around the first floor roof terrace. The proposed amenity space would therefore not comply with the requirements of Policy H14 in terms of being depth, orientation, attractiveness and usefulness. The amenity space provided for the proposed three-bedroom units would also be completely substandard for dwellings that could potentially be occupied by families with children.

14.0 Summary

14.1 The current proposal has not addressed all the reasons for refusal of the previous application and it is therefore considered to contrary to Local Plan Policies, Local Development Framework Policies and National Planning Guidance.

Page 20


15.0 PART C: RECOMMENDATION 15.1 Recommendation

15.2 The proposal is contrary to Policies EN1, H13 and H14 of the Local Plan

for Slough (2004); Core Policies 4 (Type of Housing) and 8 (Sustainability and the Environment) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 Submission; PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing), for reasons outlined in the report above. The proposal is therefore recommended for Refusal.

15.3 PART D: REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Reason(s) for refusal:

1. The proposed development would adversely impact on the character of the street scene by reason of its excessive scale, bulk, height and overdevelopment of the site, which would not be in keeping with the prevailing character of the surrounding built environment and contrary to PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 3: Housing and Policies H13 and EN1 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004) and Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -2026, Submission Document November 2007.

2. The proposed development would adversely impact the amenity and privacy of adjoining neighbours by virtue of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of outlook due to the excessive bulk and mass of the proposed structure within close proximity of adjoining dwellings, contrary Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1): Delivering Sustainable Development, Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3): Housing, and Policies EN1and H13 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004) and Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -2026, Submission Document November 2007.

3. The proposed development fails to provide family housing in

terms of the definition outlined in the Core Strategy for a development outside the Town Centre, contrary to PPS3 (Housing) and Core Policy 4 (Type of Housing) of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -2026, Submission Document November 2007.

4. The proposal fails to provide acceptable amenity space for the type of residential development proposed, resulting in a development that would be detrimental to the residential amenity of future occupiers, especially the three-bedroom units that could

Page 21


be occupied by families with children, in not being high quality housing. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy H14 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004) and PPS3.

Page 22


Applic. No: P/11797/005

Registration

Date:

16-Sep-2008 Ward: Kedermister

Officer: Mr. W.

McCarthy

Applicant: Mr. T S Hayre, Hayre Builders Ltd

Agent: Mr. Sukhdev Singh 20a, Canterbury Road, Hanworth, Middlesex, TW13

5LF

Location: 37-39, London Road, Slough, Berkshire

Proposal: RETENTION OF TWO REPLACEMENT FOUR NO. BEDROOM

DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

(FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING DETACHED

DWELLINGS).

Recommendation: Approval

AGENDA ITEM 5

Page 23


P/11797/005


1.1 Having regards to the Policies contained within national planning policy guidance and local planning policies contained within the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy and the Adopted Local Plan, the proposed development is recommended for refusal.

1.2 This application would normally be dealt with under Delegated Powers, but it has been decided that due to the complex planning history of the site, that it would be appropriate for the current application to be determined by the Planning Committee.


2.1

This is an application for full planning permission for the: “RETENTION OF TWO REPLACEMENT 4 NO. BEDROOM DETACHED HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING (FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING DETACHED DWELLINGS).

2.2 2.4

The proposal is for the retention of the two dwellings that are part built at Nos. 37 and 39. Essentially each of these dwellings has four large bedrooms with a snooker room occupying the entire loft floor area. Each dwelling would be served by 3 no. off street parking spaces with access off London Road. The two dwellings are set back from London Road by 16m. Paragraph 4 and Appendix 1 sets out the history of applications on the site. Essentially the construction of the dwellings commenced in relation to the details approved under application ref P/11797/004 approved on 20th December 2007. However, subsequently it was found that the dwellings on site differed from the approved details in 4 ways: A. The footprint of the ground floor of No 37 was approx 0.5m further towards the rear of the site than approved. B. The number of veluxe roof lights in each of the side roof profiles to both properties had increased from one to two. The two rooflights in the front elevation of each property were in slightly different positions. C. A small plinth has been constructed to the ground floor of each of the properties D. The number of windows inserted at first floor in the rear elevation of

Page 24


2.5

each property was 6 not 4 as approved. This current application was submitted in September 2008 in order to regularise these aspects of the development. Very little has been done to the properties in terms of their continued construction since the submission of the applications, following the involvement of the Planning Enforcement Team.

2.6 Following negotiations with the applicants agents, amended plans have been received (on 23rd December 2008) in relation to: A. Reverting the number of windows in each of the properties, at first floor to 4. B. Removing the 2 dormer windows installed in the rear roofline of No. 37 and replacing them with 2 sets of veluxe roof lights. C. Removing the previously installed roof lights to the front roofline of both Nos. 37 and 39 and replacing them with a single dormer to each front roofline.


3.1 The application site comprises a spacious plot, roughly rectangular and

measures 35m wide at the front, 43m at the rear and 60.5m deep. Access is obtained from London Road. Two detached dwellings have been demolished and two replacement dwellings are currently part constructed.

3.2 The adjoining property at No. 35 has been extended with a single storey side extension. No. 41 has been extended with a single storey front and side extension, all with flat roofs and a two-storey side extension. A detached dwelling No.2a Rambler Lane is sited, to the rear of No. 35 London Road. This dwelling (No.2a) has an east – west orientation, with the rear elevation overlooking the rear garden of the previous property occupying the application site and rear garden of the two dwellings under construction as part of this application. .

4.0 Site History

4.1

P/11797/000: Change of use from residential to a HMO; Approved with conditions - 19/04/2002

4.2 P/11797/001: Change of use from residential to offices (B1): Refused - 25/03/2002

4.3 P/11797/002: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two

Page 25


replacement detached five bedroom dwellings with associated access and parking; Approved with conditions - 11/09/2006

4.4 P/11797/003: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two replacement detached five bedroom dwellings with associated access and parking; Refused - 30/07/2007

4.5 4.6

P/11797/004: Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 2 no. detached house; Approved – 20/12/2007 Appendix 1 to this report gives more consideration to the 3 main applications (002-004) within the planning history and considers the schemes impact, specifically proposed property No 37 in relation to 2a Rambler Lane.


5.1 Neighbours notified of the proposal were:

2 & 2a Rambler Lane 35, 41, 43, 43a, b, c, d London Road 7, 9, 11, 14 & 15 Kaywood Close 2 - 38, 1 - 39 Hurworth Avenue

5.2 Three letters have been received: The owner of 2a Rambler Lane draws attention to various discrepancies between the situation with the adjoining properties and the submitted location plan, as well as the proposed drawings and the Design and Access Statement. These include alterations and extension undertaken at nos. 35 and 41, which are not reflected on site plans. The writer also questions the number and position of the windows.

5.3

A letter has also been received from John Andrews Associates, on behalf of the occupiers of 2a Rambler Lane presenting the following objections:

• Scale: out of character in terms of relationship with adjoining dwellings;

• Height: the height is excessive in relation to the proximity of the application site and the adjoining dwellings;

• Massing / Bulk: the resulting volume is excessive and has resulted in an unacceptable spatial relationship between properties, with an objectionable over dominant mass, especially when viewed from the rear;

• Layout & siting: no regard for the impact neighbouring

Page 26


5.4

development, with intolerable harm to the well established residential amenities;

• Building form & design: the proposal fails to comply with the guidance given in PPS1 in terms of achieving good design due to the lack of “designing for privacy”;

• Architectural Style / Visual impact: buildings are alien in style, resulting in overly dominant architectural style;

• Relationship to nearby properties: significant adverse impact on nearby properties, especially 2A Rambler Lane, due to an unacceptable loss of privacy. Distances between the rear windows of 2A Rambler Lane and no. 37 London Road fall short of the standard of at least 20m.

• The proposal is contrary to Policy EN1 as well as PPS1 and PPS3 and should therefore be refused;

• Discrepancies between the submitted drawings and dwellings on site are listed, as stated in 5.3.

• The applicant’s statement that the development is “complimentary and subordinate to adjoining dwellings” is also questioned.

A letter has also been received from the occupier of 2 Rambler Lane questioning whether the current work has the benefit of planning permission. In addition the writer questions the number of windows overlooking 35 and 41 London Road and 2a Rambler Lane, and suggests that overshadowing of these properties will occur Following receipt of amended plans neighbouring occupiers were re-notified. Any comments received will be reported on the amendment sheet.

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 6.0 Policy Background

6.1 National Planning Policies:

Planning Policy Statements 1 (Sustainable Development) and 3 (Housing) Planning Policy Guideline 13 (Transport) Local Development Framework (Core Strategy) Core Policies 4, 7 and 8 Adopted Local Plan for Slough Policies H14, EN1, T2

7.0 Planning Considerations

7.1 Policy EN1 advises that development proposals are required to reflect

Page 27


a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surrounds in terms of siting and relationship to nearby properties amongst other criteria.

7.2 Planning Policy Statement 3 reiterates guidance given in PPS1 insofar as it relates to new housing. PPS3 states that: “Good design is indivisible from good planning. Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunity for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted”.

7.3 Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Submission Document, November 2007, states that: “All developments in the Borough shall be sustainable, of a high quality design, improve the quality of the environment..”. Part 2 to that policy covers design and in sub section b) it states: All development will:

a) Be of a high quality design that is practical, attractive, safe, accessible and adaptable;

b) Respect its location and surroundings;

c) Provide appropriate public space, amenity space and landscaping as an integral part of the design; and

d) Be in accordance with the Spatial Strategy in terms of its height, scale, massing and architectural style.

7.4 Policy H13 of the Adopted Local Plan sets out a number of criteria

which must be complied with including: a) that the type, scale, design and density are in keeping with the existing residential area; d) that the scheme is designed so that existing residential properties retain appropriate garden areas, they do not suffer from overlooking or loss of privacy, and there are no substantial loss of amenity due to the creation of new roads or parking areas”.

7.5 Policy EN1of the Adopted Local Plan states that: ”all development proposals are required to reflect a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surrounding”, in accordance with the criteria set out in that policy.

8.0 Backland / Infill Development 8.1 The Site History in paragraph 4 and at Appendix 1 outlines that the

Page 28


8.2 8.3

application site has a substantial history in terms of redevelopment for two dwellings, which includes two previous approvals. The current application has been submitted as a result of non compliance with the details approved in relation to planning approval P/11797/004. The principle of the redevelopment of the site for two dwellings has been established and it would therefore be unreasonable to object to the construction of two dwellings on the application site, especially in light of the fact that the site previously consisted of two period dwellings. The principle considerations relate to the assessment of impact on the street scene, and the neighbouring properties. This report will concentrate on these aspects in relation to the details approved under applications 002 and 004.

9.0 Design and Impact on the street scene 9.1 The section of London Road in which the application site is situated is

characterised by larger than average sized detached dwellings. The first approval for the redevelopment of the site (under 002) was of similar size, but included a set in on both sides at first floor level in the front corners of the proposed dwellings. A subsequent application (003), which included an increase in the size of the proposed dwellings and changes to the design of the dwellings, was refused.

9.2 9.3

The re-submitted scheme (004) reverted to some of the principles of the original approval (002) including the prominent bay-window features, which was derived from the original dwelling at no. 37, prior to the demolition of this dwelling. It did however also include a single storey rear element (1.9m in depth) and two dormer windows on the rear roof slope. This earlier approved scheme (002) included a set in on both sides at first floor level at the front corners of the proposed dwellings, which was omitted for the re-submitted scheme (004). The case officer considered that: “whilst it does amount to a small increase in bulk at first floor level, it is considered that the design and appearance of the dwellings as seen in the street has been improved through the simplification of the building / rooflines.” The current scheme before the Planning Committee is similar to the previous approval (004) in this regard and it is agreed that the simplifying of the design of the façade is an improvement in terms of impact of the dwellings on the character of the street scene. It is considered that the proposed dwellings would harmonise with the design of the original property at No. 37 and are therefore not considered to appear out of keeping with the character of the London Road street scene.

Page 29


9.4

The negotiated improvements to the current scheme also involve the removal of the previously approved and installed velux roof lights to each property and the installation of one front roof dormer to each property. It is considered that the careful design and positioning of these dormers would balance the overall design of the properties and would not detract from the street scene.

10.0 Impact on adjoining properties No. 35 – general amenity.

10.1 10.2

The dwelling previously approved under 002 at No. 37 included a inset/step back at first floor level in the north-western rear corner adjacent to the boundary with No. 35 London Road. Under the previous (004) and the current proposal, this inset/step back at first floor level has not been included and the building line to the first floor elevation of No. 37 is continual. The proposed dwelling No. 37 would therefore project approximately 5.5m beyond the rear building line of No. 35 at ground floor level and 3.5m at first floor level. Both these applications also include the 1.9m single storey rear projection, for both dwellings. At the time of assessing the previous applications, it was considered that “whilst the proposed extension into this rear corner would project beyond the rear building line of No. 35, given that the closest habitable room window is located away from this boundary in the main dwelling at No. 35 and given the orientation of the properties (any effect in terms of shading of the rear garden would be limited to the early morning) it was considered on balance that the proposed extension into this corner would not have a significant impact on the living conditions of that property in terms of outlook, loss of sunlight.” This current scheme has not included any changes in this regard and is noted that no objections have been received from the owner of no. 35 London Road. No. 2a Rambler Lane – privacy.

10.3

The first approval for the two dwellings on the site (002) included four windows and one set of patio doors at ground floor, with six windows at first floor level for the dwelling at no. 37. The second approval (004) scheme involved three sets of patio doors at ground floor level, four windows at first floor level and two flat roofed dormers in the rear roof slope. The officers delegated report stated that: “To address the issue of overlooking for No. 2a Rambler Lane, the

Page 30


10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

following changes have been made to the original scheme:

1. The first floor rear bedroom windows have been reduced from 4 to 2 and the bathroom and walk-in wardrobe windows obscurely glazed as indicated on the amended drawing. In total there would be now 4 windows on the first floor level.

2. The rear roof dormers have been reduced to two as agreed in

the previously.

Furthermore, any views towards the windows at No. 2a Rambler Lane would be indirect given the orientation of the windows. Accordingly, it is not considered that a refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy or overlooking for No. 2a would be able to be justified.” In relation to the patio doors at ground floor level these are not considered to be a fundamental change to the scheme and will not adversely affect the privacy or amenities of any neighbouring occupiers. In relation to the first floor rear of No. 37 the applicant has not however constructed with only four windows. The current application as originally submitted shows what is currently on site i.e. 6 windows in the rear elevation at first floor. The two dormers windows in the rear roof slope are present on site as previously agreed, in principle under application 003 and as agreed in full under application 004. When considering this matter the view set out in the previous delegated officer’s reports are relevant. Given No. 2a Rambler Lane is orientated towards the east, and no. 37 London Road is orientated towards the north, the views from No. 37 are indirect and the loss of privacy between the habitable room windows are not a justifiable reason for refusal. It is however acknowledge that the occupiers of no. 2a do experience an increased sense of overlooking due to the number of windows in the rear elevation of no. 37. For this reason, and on the basis of the small movement (of 0.5m) backwards in the footprint of No 37, officers have negotiated an amendment to the previous approved scheme P/11797/004. As well as the reversion back to only four windows at first floor level to the rear of No. 37 (with the two windows closest to No 2a Rambler Lane – serving an ensuite bathroom and walk-in wardrobe - being maintained in obscured glazing) the negotiated amended scheme includes the removal of the rear dormer windows and their replacement with roof lights

Page 31


10.8

It is therefore believed that this would significantly reduce the perceived loss of privacy experienced by the occupiers of no. 2a Rambler Lane and based on this, no objection is raised to the current proposal in terms of a loss of privacy towards the neighbouring property. The rear elevation for the dwelling at no. 39 retains the two dormers in the rear roof slope, but the windows at first floor level have also been reduced to four to maintain symmetry between the properties. No objection is raised to this amendment, because it considered that due to different relationship with the adjoining properties, no. 39 does not result in a loss of privacy or a perceived loss of privacy for the adjoining occupiers.

10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14

No. 2a Rambler Lane – scale, bulk and mass. In terms of the impact on the occupants of 2A Rambler Lane, due to the omission of the inset/step back at first floor level on the corner of No 37 closest to this existing neighbouring property, the distance between the nearest corners of has been reduced from 19m approved to 16m on site. This means that the dwelling currently under construction is 3m nearer to the south-eastern corner of no. 2a Rambler Lane at first floor level. At ground floor level, the distance between the nearest corners is only slightly different (0.5m). This does not have any significant implications in itself for the occupiers of No. 2a Rambler Lane. A principle consideration on this current application is whether the rear building line of the property at 37 at first floor level continues to be acceptable. The history set out at Appendix 1 gives specific details of the applications in respect of this first floor inset/step back. Essentially the instep/set back on the first floor rear corner of No. 37 was negotiated as part of the approved scheme 002. However, this element of the scheme was not the same within the later scheme presented under application 003. Under this scheme the rear elevation of No 37 at first floor is continual, as it is on site now. It would appear that this element was not explicitly addressed within the officers report on application 003, which was refused. When considering the approved scheme 004 it is acknowledged that the officer considered the planning issues of the scheme principally in relation to refused scheme 003 and did not address the negotiations under approved scheme 002 which led to the incorporation of the inset/set back on that earlier approved scheme.

Page 32


10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19

The question therefore arises as to the merits of seeking further amendments to the current application to bring it back into line with the scheme approved under 002, in respect of the inset/set back element to the rear first floor of No. 37. There are several matters which need to be judged on this particular point: A. Not withstanding the site history and the way in which previous negotiations were dealt conducted in relation to officer’s consideration of application 004, nevertheless that scheme (004) was approved. Whilst it was approved under officer’s delegated authority, Planning Committee would have to consider whether there was significant harm resulting from the continued retention of the scheme on site, in relation to this specific aspect, to justify a refuse planning permission. B. It is considered that the other principle aspects of concern to the occupiers of 2a Rambler Lane, in relation to loss of privacy have been addressed through negotiations with applicant’s agent. The widows at first floor to the rear of No 37 will revert back to the number (4) approved under scheme 004. Even more beneficial, officers have secured the replacement of the roof dormers within No37 with rooflights. C. It is concluded that with the resolution of the privacy aspects the only principle matter for consideration relates to the lack of the inset/set back negotiated under scheme 002 but not considered in relation to the most recent approval 004. It should be noted that this is one element of a substantial scheme for two dwellings on the site, which on the whole is otherwise acceptable. Whilst the relationship between the existing property at 2A Rambler Lane and No. 37 would be improved with a inset/set back within the first floor rear corner of No 37 it is considered that the overall impact would be marginal, given the above considerations. As such it is therefore considered that the inset/set back at first floor level on the north-western corner would not make a significant difference in terms of the impact on the occupiers of no. 35 London Road or no. 2a Rambler Lane and the absence of this element does not justify refusal of the current application.

11.0 Amenity Space

11.1 Policy H14 (Amenity Space) requires that the space provided be

suitable for the type and size of the dwelling and household and the quality of the area be assessed in terms of size, depth, orientation, privacy, attractiveness, usefulness and accessibility; along with the character of surrounding area in terms of size and type of amenity

Page 33


space for existing dwellings.

11.2 The proposed development includes rear gardens in excess of the Council’s guidelines for amenity space provision, which was also considered to be acceptable when the previous application was assess. No objection is therefore raised in terms of Policy 14 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Submission Document, November 2007 and PPS3, in terms of the creating high quality housing.

12.0 Highways & Traffic

12.1 The proposal includes parking in accordance with the Council’s

Adopted Parking Standards of three spaces for each dwelling. Although the Traffic and Highway Engineers have not been consulted on the current application, no objection was raised to the previous application, which included the same access and parking arrangement. No objection is therefore raised to the current proposal in terms of Policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004 and Core Policy 7 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Submission Document, November 2007.

13.0 Summary

13.1 13.3

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the National and Local Plan Policies in terms of the impact on the adjoining residents and the significant detrimental impact on highway safety in the immediate area. Consideration has been given to the planning history of the site and to previous negotiations in relation to the proposed property at No 37 London Road. On the basis of the analysis of this history and the recent negotiations it is considered that a refusal of planning permission could not be justified.

PART C: RECOMMENDATION 14.0 Recommendation

14.1 The proposal is consistent with Planning Policy Statement 3, Policies

H13, H14 and T2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 and Core Policy 7 for reasons outlined in the report above. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

15.0 PART D: LIST OF CONDITIONS

Conditions:

Page 34


1. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in

accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved unless

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

TO BE CONFIRMED

REASON To ensure that the site is developed in accordance with the

submitted application and to ensure that the proposed development does

not prejudice the amenity of the area.

2. The proposed dormer windows on the rear roof slope of the dwelling

permitted for 37 London Road shall be removed and replaced with roof

lights prior to the occupation of this dwelling.

REASON In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and in

line with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

3. The first floor rear windows shall be implemented in accordance with the

details indicated on drawing numbers TSH/04/D and TSH/05D, dated

December 2008, received 23/12/08, prior to the occupation of the

dwellings hereby permitted.

REASON In the interest of the amenity of the adjoining occupiers and in

line with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

4. Samples of external materials to be used in the construction of the access

road, pathways and communal areas within the development hereby

approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority priot to occupation of the development hereby

permitted and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the

details approved.

REASON To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the development so as

not to prejudice the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with

Policy EN1 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

5. Not withstanding the terms and provisions of the Town & Country

Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any order

revoking and re-enacting that Order), no Windows /dormer windows other

than expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed without

the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To protect the amenity and privacy of adjacent occupiers in

accordance with Policy H15 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

6. All the ground and first floor windows in the eastern and western flank

Page 35


elevations of Nos. 37 and 39 London Road hereby approved shall be

glazed with obscure glass in accordance with a sample to be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as well as

implemented prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted and

any opening shall be at a high level (minimum of 1.8m above the internal

finished floor level) only.

REASON To minimise any loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers in

accordance with Policy H15 of The Local Plan for Slough, 2004

7. Not withstanding the terms and provisions of the Town & Country

Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any order

revoking and re-enacting that Order), Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A,B,D &

F, no extension to the house hereby permitted or buildings or enclosures

shall be erected constructed or placed on the site without the express

permission of the Local Planning Authority

REASON The rear garden(s) are considered to be only just adequate for

the amenity area appropriate for houses of the size proposed. It would be

too small to accommodate future development(s) which would otherwise

be deemed to be permitted by the provision of the above order in

accordance with Policy H14 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

8. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a detailed

investigation of the site shall be undertaken to assess and manage any land

contamination. The assessment shall be submitted to, and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include:

i) A desk study containing a site history and an initial risk assessment. If

this confirms there is the potential for contamination then a further site

investigation shall be carried out which shall fully characterise the nature,

extent and severity of any contamination.

ii) If the site poses an unacceptable risk a remedial strategy is required

detailing the specific remediation and mitigation measures necessary to

ensure the protection for future occupants of the development. This should

provide a contingency to deal with any previously unidentified

contamination which, may be encountered during works.

iii) The remediation scheme shall be implemented before the development

is first occupied.

iv) On completion of the remediation works the developer shall provide

written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the

agreed strategy.

REASON In the interests of the safety of the future occupiers of the

development and comply with the provisions of Policy EN28 of The

Local Plan For Slough 2004.

Page 36


9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted a detailed

landscaping and tree planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should include

the trees and shrubs to be retained and/or removed and the type, density,

position and planting heights of new trees and shrubs.

The approved scheme shall be carried out no later than the first planting

season following completion of the development. Within a five year period

following the implementation of the scheme, if any of the new or retained

trees or shrubs should die, are removed or become seriously damaged or

diseased, then they shall be replaced in the next planting season with

another of the same species and size as agreed in the landscaping tree

planting scheme by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and accordance

with Policy EN3 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development, details of the proposed

boundary treatment including position, external appearance, height and

materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning

Authority. A suitable means of his boundary treatment shall be

implemented on site prior to the first occupation of the development and

retained at all time on the future.

REASON In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and accordance

with Policy EN3 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

11. During the demolition / construction phase of the development hereby

permitted, no work shall be carried out on the site outside the hours of

08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays - Fridays, 08.00 hours - 13.00 hours

on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays.

REASON To protect the amenity of residents within the vicinity of the site

in accordance with the objectives of Policy EN26 of The Local Plan for

Slough 2004.

12. During the demolition stage of the development, a suitable continuous

water supply shall be provided in order to minimise the formation and

spread of dust and the perimeter of the site shall be screened to a sufficient

height to prevent the spread of dust.

REASON To prevent the formation and spread of dust in the interests of

air quality and to accord with Policy EN29 of The Local Plan for Slough

2004.

13. During the construction phase of the development hereby permitted, there

shall be no deliveries to the site outside the hours of 08.00 hours to 18.00

Page 37


hours Mondays - Fridays, 08.00 hours - 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at

no time on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays.

REASON To protect the amenity of residents within the vicinity of the site

in accordance with the objectives of Policy EN26 of The Local Plan for

Slough 2004.

14. The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the

submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the

development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for

any other purpose.

REASON To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the

highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the

adjoining highway.

Informatives:

1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Local Plan for Slough 2004 and the Local

Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 Development Plan

Document, as set out below, (to Supplementary Planning Guidance) and to

all relevant material considerations.

Local Plan Policies: H13, H14, EN1 and T2

Core Policy 8

This informative is only intended as a summary of the reasons for the grant

of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the

application report by contacting the Development Control Section on

01753 477340.

2. The applicant is reminded that at all times, without the prior permission of

the freeholder there can be no encroachment onto the adjoining property.

3. No water meters will permitted within the public footway. The applicant

will need to provide wayleave to Thames Water Plc for installation of

water meters within the site.

4. The development must be so designed and constructed to ensure that

surface water from the development does not drain onto the highway or

into the highway drainage system.

5. The applicant is advised that if it is intended to use soakaways as the method of dealing with the disposal of surface water then the permission

of the Environment Agency will be necessary.

Page 38


The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct

the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding, skip or any other

device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway

Authority.

16.0 16.1

APPENDIX 1 – RELEVANT SITE HISTORY Application reference P/11797/002 This was received in July, 2006. The drawings submitted showed that for each of the two properties proposed: the footprint would have been broadly square in shape, each property would contain five bedrooms (at first floor level) and the roof line would be of a hipped profile. The initial assessment of this application was carried out by the then case Officer. By way of a letter dated the 21s August, 2006 the case officer wrote to the applicant’s agent outlining his views on the two main issues considered above, namely the overall bulk, scale and mass, and the impact on 2a Rambler Lane. In terms of overall size, scale and mass it was noted that the proposed dwellings would be significantly higher than the existing building they replaced and would appear overly prominent in the street scene. In addition, the design of the lean-to single storey element at the side was not considered to relate well to the design of the original property or the context of the street scene. Secondly, it was considered that the proposal would give rise to overlooking and privacy issues and would appear overbearing when seen from the property at 2A Rambler Lane, thereby detracting from the residential amenity of the occupiers of that property. In the light of these concerns amendments were suggested to the applicant in relation to a reduction in the overall bulk, scale and mass of the properties, the omission of the guest room at ground floor and part of bedroom 4 at first floor (within proposed property No 37). Amended plans which were received on the 6th September, 2006 showed various changes to the scheme. In relation to 2a Rambler Lane the guest room within proposed property No 37 was reduced in size. A commensurate reduction at first floor level removed part of the north-west corner of the property (removing an element 4.5m in width and 4m in depth). Thus the first floor at this point became set back four metres from the main rear elevation. Paragraph 3.3 of the Officer’s delegated report considered the overall size of the proposed detached dwellings. No objection was raised to the overall size of the properties which were considered reflective of

Page 39


16.2

the surrounding area. Paragraph 3.4 of that report refers to design which was broadly considered acceptable. In terms of the impact on residential amenity paragraph 3.7 referred to the relationships between the proposed property, the neighbouring property at 35 London Road and the property at 2A Rambler Lane. Specific reference to 2a Rambler Lane was made with regard to the 45° line of sight and the maintenance of a 21.5 metre distance to the rear of your property. This was considered ‘just adequate’ so that a reason for refusal based on the loss of privacy or overlooking could not be justified in that instance. It was considered that at ground floor level loss of privacy would not be an issue given tree/landscaping protection. (The ground floor rear element in the North West corner of No 37 had been reinstated by further amended plans on the 7th September, 2006). With regard to this approved scheme:

• The proposed properties did not include any loft space habitable rooms.

• The amended plans showed four principle windows in the rear elevation at first floor level, two serving bedroom three and two serving bedroom four.

• The inset/set back at first floor level in the North West corner of No 37, achieved through negotiation, contained two windows: one each to an en-suite bathroom and walk-in wardrobe. The plans did not show these windows as being annotated obscure glazed nor did any conditions attached to the planning permission, which was granted on the 11th September, 2006 require as such.

Application reference P/11797/003 This was submitted in May, 2007. The application differed from that previously approved under reference 002 in that various design changes had been made and principally there was an introduction of loft space, noted as a snooker room. This loft space was shown as being served by two rear dormer windows and two Velux windows to the front roof profile. From the Officer’s report it was clear that there were a number of concerns regarding this particular scheme. At paragraph 3.3 of the Officer’s report it was noted that whilst the area is characterised by larger than average sized detached dwellings, the proposal had increased the size and height of the dwellings and in particular the size of the first floor element over and above that

Page 40


16.3

approved under reference 002. In addition bay window features had been omitted from the front elevation which had resulted in a bulky appearance to the scheme. The paragraphs dealing with impact on residential amenity do not directly address the issues relating to bulk or overlooking in relation to the property at 2A Rambler Lane. The reasons for refusal are couched in general terms in relation to:-

1. The design of the development would be inappropriate in its context.

2. The proposed dwellings by reason of scale, bulk and design would be out of keeping with the established character of the area and would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

Neither of these reasons specifically relate to impact on the property at 2A Rambler Lane. Application reference P/11797/004 This was submitted in October, 2007. The plans initially submitted again showed a loft space proposed for a snooker room and bathroom. In the original submission three rear dormer windows were proposed. At first floor level, to the rear, the en-suite/wardrobe room space is shown flush with the main rear elevation of the property, as proposed when application reference 002 was originally submitted ie the inset/set back was no longer incorporated in the scheme. At ground floor level a single storey element to the rear elevation was introduced. The Officer’s report again considers the issue of overall bulk, scale and mass and provides comment on design. It notes that the dwellings are of a size that is characteristic of the local area. Also in terms of size the properties are of a size previously approved under reference 002.In terms of overall design and appearance the dwellings were considered acceptable particularly in terms of the reintroduction of bay window features to the front elevation. In terms of 2A Rambler Lane the report notes that the first floor rear bedroom windows were reduced from four to two (one each serving bedrooms three and four) and that the bathroom and walk-in wardrobe windows would be obscurely glazed, as indicated on the amended drawing. As such the total would be four windows to the rear at first floor level. In addition the rear roof dormers had been reduced from three to two in number. The report notes that in the opinion of the Officer any views

Page 41


towards the windows at 2A Rambler Lane would be indirect given the orientation of windows. As such it was not considered that refusal on the grounds of loss of privacy overlooking for 2A could be justified. No direct consideration was given to the issues of scale bulk and mass in relation to the property at No. 2a Rambler Lane. Conditional planning permission was granted on 20th December 2007.

Page 42


Applic. No: P/07482/007

Registration

Date:

08-Oct-2008 Ward: Kedermister

Officer: Mr. M.

Rowntree

Applicant: Mrs. Paramjit Kaur

Agent: Mr. Mav Sandhu, Landmark Designs Ltd The Pillars, Slade Oak Lane,

Gerrads Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 0QE

Location: 38, Harrow Road, Slough, SL3 8SQ

Proposal: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A TWO

STOREY, TWO BEDROOM ATTACHED DWELLING AND A PART

SINGLE, PART TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION

Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions.

AGENDA ITEM 6

Page 43


P/07482/007


1.1 1.2

Having considered the policy background and comments from consultees, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions. The application has been called in to the Planning Committee by Cllr Mann in order to enable the views of both the applicant and objectors to be heard following the extensive planning and enforcement history on the site


2.1 The application is for retrospective approval of the construction of a two

bedroom attached end-of-terrace dwelling (described as 38a Harrow Road) to the side of the existing dwelling at 38 Harrow Road, and construction of a two storey rear extension to the existing dwelling. This is an application for full planning permission, with full plans submitted.

2.2 The building footprint for the new dwelling measures 9.65m deep by 4.76m wide and has a height of 8m which is the same as the original dwelling. The original hipped roof has been extended over the new dwelling so that the new dwelling falls under the same roofline as the remainder of the terrace.

2.3 The application also comprises the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension to the existing dwelling. The extension measures 3.4m deep and 6.4m wide with the first floor element set off the boundary with No. 40 by 3m. The extension projects 1m beyond the rear wall of the new dwelling.

2.4 The proposal is similar to that which was approved under Application No. P/07482/005 for Erection of two bed attached dwelling. Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension. The approval was granted 04/07/2006. However, the dwelling has been constructed 0.51m wider than as was previously approved.


3.1 The application site contains an end house in a two storey terrace comprising 6 properties. A new end-of-terrace dwelling has been constructed which is the subject of this application. There is a hardstand area to the front of the site for parking of two cars for each of the two

Page 44


dwellings. The side of the new dwelling contains a ~5.25m wide garden. A further garden area is located to the rear with a depth of just under 5m. The depth of the rear garden behind the original dwelling is ~10m.

3.2 The proposal property has a generous side garden which is enclosed by a dwarf boundary wall with privet hedge.

3.3 Terraces are the predominant form of housing in this part of Langley. Substantial extensions are not characteristic of the area.

4.0 Site History

4.1 P/07482/000 - Erection of a Detached House with Integral Garage and

New Garage for No 38. Refused 02/06/1987.

4.2 P/07482/001 - Erection of 2/3 Bedroom Detached House and Parking (Outline). Withdrawn 07/04/2004.

4.3 P/07482/002 - Demolition of Existing garage and Erection of an Attached Two Bedroom House with Associated Parking (Outline) Refused 8th September 2004

4.4 P/07482/003 - Erection of an attached two bedroom house. Granted 04/07/2006.

4.5 P/7482/004 - Erection of part two storey, part single storey rear extension to existing house with pitched roof and erection of a two storey two bedroom attached house with parking and access. Withdrawn 27/10/2006.

4.6 P/07482/005 - Erection of an attached two bedroom house and tow storey rear extension to the original dwelling. Granted 04/07/2006.

4.7 P/07482/006 - Erection of an outbuilding. Refused 04/07/2006.

4.8 Enforcement action has been taken against the landowner in relation to the unlawful construction of an outbuilding (the majority of which has since been removed) and the development which is the subject of this application. The current development is similar in nature to Application No. P/07482/005, which was approved in 2006 with the exception that the width of the new dwelling is 0.51m wider than approved. In addition, a conifer tree screen at the rear of No. 38 which was required by Condition 15 of the Decision Notice to be permanently retained for amenity purposes (primarily overlooking) has been removed. Due to the significant change to the layout of the development and non-compliance with Condition 15, this application has been submitted. It is also noted that the Enforcement matters relating to the site are currently subject to a court case, with the case having been adjourned pending the decision

Page 45


on this application.


5.1 Neighbour notifications were sent to the following:- 34, 36, 40 – 48, 75 & 77 Harrow Road 44-50 Hampden Road

5.2 An objection signed by the residents of three neighbouring properties

was received, with a further 21 signatures attached to the objection as a petition. The planning concerns raised are summarised as follows:

• Materials of new dwelling don’t match the existing dwelling or street scene.

• Removal of trees.

• Inadequate landscaping.

• Overshadowing.

• Overlooking / Loss of Privacy.

6.0 Consultation

6.1 Traffic/Highways

6.1.1 Council’s Principal Engineer (Highways) verbally stated that the parking proposal as previously approved with a 4m wide entrance was appropriate for the site.

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL

7.0 Policy Background 7.1 National policy guidance includes Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3.

7.2 Relevant Local Plan Policies: (2004) Policies H13, H14, H15, EN1, EN2

and T2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004, the approved Guidelines for Residential Extensions, 1994 and the Guidelines for the Provision of Amenity Space around Residential Properties, 1990.

7.3 Relevant Core Strategy Policies: Core Policies 7 and 8.

8.0 Planning Assessment 8.1 The main planning considerations are:

• Design, appearance and impact on the street scene;

• Impacts to neighbouring properties;

• Parking

Page 46


8.1.1 Design, appearance and impact on the street scene 8.1.2 The only difference between the current development and that which

was approved under Application No. P/7482/005 is that the current application seeks approval for a new dwelling that is 0.51m wider and has no existing tree screen at the rear of the site. As such, it is considered that the principle of the development in terms of the two-storey attached dwelling has been established as to be acceptable in general terms of design, siting and appearance, and that the development provides amenity space and off street parking in accordance with the approved Council Guidelines.

8.1.3 With regard to the dwelling’s appearance in the street scene, the main issue is the additional width of the dwelling over that previously approved and how its subsequent breaking of the building line along Hampden Road impacts on that street scene.

8.1.4 The previous approval considered the return building line along Hampden Road and deemed the proposal appropriate as it respected this line after amendments were made during the application process to reduce the width of the dwelling. The current application seeks approval for a new dwelling that projects ~0.5m beyond the continuation of Hampden Road building line.

8.1.5 While the break in the building line is visible, the application site forms part of a different terrace building and is therefore not part of the continuous building line formed by the line of terraces on Hampden Road. Despite this, the application site does form a part of the street scene on Hampden Road and the application must be considered in this context.

8.1.6 It is noted that there is a distance of ~12m between the new dwelling and the main portion of the dwelling on the adjacent property to the east, which is the end-of-terrace dwelling at the western end of Hampden Road (No. 50 Hampden Road). No. 50 also has a single storey side extension and the distance to that extension is ~6m, however it is at first floor level that the impression of the building line is formed. This gap between the application site and No. 50 Hampden Road significantly reduces the impact of the dwelling’s projection beyond the building line. While the building should have been constructed as previously approved and within the Hampden Road building line, the 0.5m additional projection is not considered to substantially harm the street scene and is not a significant enough reason to warrant refusal on its own.

8.1.7 It is therefore considered that on street scene impact, design and appearance grounds, the design of the dwelling and extension are considered acceptable in relation to Policies EN1 of the Adopted Local

Page 47


Plan (2004), Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-026 Submission Document November 2007 and PPS 1 and 3.

8.2 Amenity impacts to neighbouring properties

8.2.1 Condition 15 of Decision Notice No. P/07482/005 required that the then existing confer screen on the rear boundary of the application site be permanently maintained to a minimum height of 3m for the life of the development. However, the screen has since been removed, resulting in increased overlooking towards No. 50 Hampden Road and a perceived loss of privacy to that resident.

8.2.2 In order to address the above issue, plans have been submitted proposing an angled bay window to the first floor bedroom of the extension to No. 38 Harrow Road. The window has obscured glass proposed on its main northeast facing pane, which faces the rear garden of No. 50 Hampden Road. This pane will also be fixed shut. The southeast (street) facing window pane will be left clear to provide an outlook for occupants of the bedroom. High level window panes would be open-able to provide air to the room without causing a loss of privacy.

8.2.3 In addition to the proposed angled bay window, a tree screen should be provided to replace the one that was removed unlawfully. The submitted plans note that 10ft (~3m) high trees are to be planted 1m apart along the rear boundary of No. 38 Harrow Road. Any decision notice approving the development should include a condition that requires planting and permanent retention of these trees to further protect the privacy of residents at No. 50 Hampden Road.

8.2.4 It is therefore considered that amenity impact, grounds, the design of the dwelling and extension are considered acceptable in relation to Policies EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004), Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-026 Submission Document November 2007 and PPS 1 and 3.

8.3 Parking

8.3.1 As noted in section 6 (Consultations) above, Council’s Principal Engineer (Highways) verbally stated that the parking proposal as previously approved with a 4m wide entrance was appropriate for the site. The submitted plans reflect this by showing the parking layout previously approved and noting that part of the already constructed crossover is to be reinstated to a standard footway.

8.3.2 The parking proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Core Policy 7 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-026

Page 48


Submission Document November 2007 and Policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004).

9.0 Summary

9.1 On balance, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable on the planning grounds aforementioned and is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

10.0 PART C: RECOMMENDATION 10.1 Recommendation

Approve, subject to conditions. If the Planning Committee agree with the above recommendation the following informative must form part of the decision notice: The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004, as set out below, (to Supplementary Planning Guidance) and to all relevant material considerations. Policies:- H13, H14, H15, EN1, EN2 and T2 of Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004), Core Policies 7 & 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Submission Document, November 2007). This informative is only intended as a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Development Control Section on 01753 477340.

11.0 PART D: LIST OF CONDITIONS

Condition(s):

1. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority:-

Dr Drawing No: MS/SB/38/08A; Dated: September 2008 Rec’d: 19/12/2008;

Drawing No: MS/SB/38/08RP; Dated: 03 OCT 08 Rec’d: 06/10/2008;

Drawing No: MS/SB/3/08ES; Dated: 03 OCT 08 Rec’d: 06/10/2008;

Page 49


REASON: To ensure that the site is developed in accordance with the submitted application and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenity of the area and to comply with the policies in The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

2. The angled bay window within the eastern elevation of Bedroom 3

shall be installed within 3 months of the date of this decision.

REASON To minimise any loss of privacy to occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy H15 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

3. No window(s), other than those hereby approved, shall be formed in the eastern elevation of the development without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. REASON To minimise any loss of privacy to occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy H15 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

4. The first floor bedroom and bathroom windows in the eastern elevation of the development hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass, with the exception of the southeast-facing window pane of Bedroom 3, and any opening shall be at a high level (above 1.8m internal floor height) only. REASON To minimise any loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers in accordance with Policy H 15 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

5. Not withstanding the terms and provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A,B,C,D,E & F, no extension to the house hereby permitted or buildings or enclosures shall be erected constructed or placed on the site without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority . REASON The rear garden(s) are considered to be only just adequate for the amenity area appropriate for houses of the size proposed. It would be too small to accommodate future development(s) which would otherwise be deemed to be permitted by the provision of the above order in accordance with Policy H14 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004

6. The existing tree planting as shown on the deposited plan as hereby approved shall be retained and permitted to grow to a

Page 50


height not exceeding 3 metres from the existing ground level, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within a five year period following the implementation of the scheme, if any of the new or retained trees or shrubs should die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, then they shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of the same species and size as agreed in the landscaping tree planting scheme by the Local Planning Authority. REASON In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and accordance with Policy EN3 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

7. The existing boundary hedge along the southern boundary of 38a Harrow Road shall be retained unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of amenity.

8. The existing access(s) to the site have been stopped up and

abandoned and the footway and verge crossing reinstated in accordance with the details outline on the approved plans of the development hereby permitted. REASON To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway in accordance with Policy T3 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

9. The proposed tree screen on the rear boundary of the application site adjoining no. 50 Hampden Road shall be permanently maintained to a minimum height of 3m for as long as the development hereby approved remains in existence. REASON: In the interest of residential amenity.

Informative(s): 1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Local Plan for Slough 2004, as set out below, (to Supplementary Planning Guidance) and to all relevant material considerations. Policies:- H13, H14, H15, EN1, EN2 and T2, Core Policies 7 and 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Submission Document, November 2007).

Page 51


This informative is only intended as a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission. For further detail on the decision please see the application report by contacting the Development Control Section on 01753 477340.

Page 52


Applic. No: P/09398/003

Registration

Date:

10-Sep-2008 Ward: Langley St. Marys

Officer: Sarah

Gambitsis

Applicant: Mr. Keith Ford

Agent: Mr. Ray Fletcher, Limeblue Innovation Ltd Lime Blue Innovation Ltd,

Freestone Yard, Park Street, Colnbrook, Slough, SL3 0HT

Location: 68, Talbot Avenue, Slough, SL3 8DE

Proposal: ERECTION OF STEPPED FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSIONS WITH

GABLE END PITCHED ROOFS, ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY

REAR EXTENSION WITH FLAT ROOF AND RE-CONSTRUCTION

OF PITCHED ROOF OVER EXISTING FRONT EXTENSION


AGENDA ITEM 7

Page 53


P/09398/003


1.1 This application is a householder application of a type which would normally be determined under powers of officer delegation. However, as the applicant is a senior officer of the Council, the application is being bought before Members for determination.

1.2 The application, as amended, raises issues of design and street scene impact and as such is being recommended for refusal.


2.1 This application is for erection of stepped first floor side extensions with

gable end pitched roofs, erection of single storey rear extension with flat roof and re-construction of pitched roof over existing front extension.

2.2 First Floor Side Extension The first floor side extension would measure 3600mm wide in the front elevation and would be set back 1250mm from the main front wall of the existing house. The extension would then step out a further 800mm, 2700mm back from the front wall of the first part of the extension. The extension would measure 4850mm wide in the rear elevation. The side extension would have a total depth of 7200mm. The roof would be set down 500mm from the main ridge and then have a further set down of 1000mm. The roof would retain the same degree of pitch as the main roof. At the rear the first floor side extension would wrap around the back corner and would project 800mm beyond the rear main wall. The eaves of the roof at the rear would sit 500mm below the eaves of the original house. The stepped extension has gable ends which ties into the design of the original house. The extension would provide a substantial 4th bedroom with en-suite shower room.

2.3 Single Storey Rear Extension The proposal includes the erection of a flat roof single storey rear extension which would project 3540mm from the rear wall of the existing splayed single storey side extension, and would measure 4700mm wide and 3300mm high. The height of the extension would be equivalent to the highest point of the mono-pitched roof of the existing rear conservatory.

2.4 Reconstructed Pitched Roof over Existing Front Extension The proposed roof, which would replace the existing front false pitch roof and the roof across the existing front porch, would rise to just beneath the proposed first floor window sill level in the proposed first floor side extension, but at a shallower pitch than that of the main roof. The

Page 54


replacement roof would span between 5600mm at the front and 3600mm just below the first floor window sill.

2.5 Parking for three cars is proposed which includes one space within the retained garage.

2.6 A rear garden with a depth of more than 15 metres would be retained.


3.1 The proposal property is a brick built, three bedroom semi detached house, located at the end of a cul de sac and which occupies a wide and spacious plot. The southern boundary of the application site is substantially splayed. The site has a frontage width of 5.4m increasing to a width of 19.2m at the rear boundary of the site.

3.2 The property is already extended to the rear, side and front at ground floor level. To the rear of the property is a conservatory measuring 6.1m wide x 3.1m deep. The existing side extension is constructed almost to the full width of the plot with a 150mm - 250mm gap retained from the side boundary. The existing ground floor side extension follows the splay of the side boundary. The existing side extension has a front false pitch roof with flat roof behind and accommodates a side garage and rear kitchen. It extends beyond the front main wall of the original house by 1100mm. The forward projection forms part of a wrap around front extension which incorporates a porch.

3.3 Adjoining the proposal property to the south is a footpath, which links into a wider footpath network to the west of site, providing pedestrian access to Minster Way and Langley Road.

4.0 Planning Background

4.1 On 19th April 2007 planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension with flat roof and first floor side extension (P/09398/001). The scheme as approved showed the flank wall of the first floor side extension running parallel with the original house. As with the current scheme, the first floor side extension was shown set down and set back from the front main wall of the original house. The extension as approved is proposed as a bedroom with en-suite shower room and dimensions 3.6m x 7.25m.

4.2 A subsequent planning application (P/09398/002) was made following the earlier approval. The plans as originally submitted under that scheme (drawing Rev B) showed a ground floor rear extension with flat roof as previously approved and a wider first floor extension with a stagger introduced into the design to retain a structure which would be parallel to the existing flank wall of the original house. These original plans (drawing

Page 55


Rev B) also showed a double set down from the main roof. Although the pitch of the roofs retain regularity and consistency with the pitch of the main roof, a section of flat roof was introduced for the rear most element of the extension. The same reconstructed pitched roof over the existing front extension was also proposed.

4.3 The resulting scheme was one of complicated roof structures incorporating an array of pitched and flat roofs at varying heights, which interrelated poorly in design terms and resulted in a development which would have detracted both from the character and appearance of the original house and that of the general street scene. The applicant’s agent was advised that the application as it stood was unlikely to be supported in planning terms.

4.4 At the time of considering planning application /002, the applicant raised concerns about consistency of planning decisions, initially indicating that he had identified some 25 examples of two storey side extensions which had been constructed up to the side boundary and one built with a splayed wall with flat roof, all within a quarter of mile radius of the proposal property. The applicant carried out further research within the area and across the Borough identifying a range of properties which have either been extended up to the side boundary or with a splayed flank wall or both. The various examples were submitted to support the applicant’s desire to amend the submitted scheme to then show a first floor splayed flank wall to be built up to the boundary of the property. Following protracted discussions between the applicant and development control officers, the applicant’s agent formally submitted a revised plan showing this splayed design, as received by the Council on 31st March 2008. On the basis of the revisions, the Council re-notified neighbouring residential occupiers (drawing Rev D).

4.5 Planning application /002 was subsequently heard by the 8th May 2008 Planning Committee and refused for the following reasons: 1. The host property occupies a visually prominent location and the

proposed first floor side extension by virtue of its splayed flank wall represents an incongruous design which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original house and that of the general street scene contrary to advice given in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2006 - 2026) Submission Document November 2007, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 and the Councils Approved Guidelines for Residential Extensions 1994.

2. The host property occupies a visually prominent location and the proposed first floor side extension by virtue of its scale, massing bulk and lack of proportionality in relation to the original house would be out

Page 56


of keeping with the character and appearance of the original house and would appear overly dominant when viewed from the existing street and neighbouring footway thereby detracting from the character and appearance of the street contrary to advice given in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2006 - 2026) Submission Document November 2007, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

The applicant has not taken up their right of appeal.

4.6 Following refusal of the amended scheme, the applicant’s agent submitted a revised proposal (drawing Rev E) to be considered as a minor amendment to the original approval (/001). The revised proposal was essentially going back to the initial scheme lodged under planning application /002 (drawing Rev B) incorporating the staggered side wall and double set down roof design although with one minor change. That is the flat roof at first floor level to the rear had been changed to a conitued roof slope with eaves finishing 500mm below the eaves of the original dwelling. The applicant’s agent was advised that as the proposal represented an increase in width compared with /001, it would not be possible to consider the proposed revision as a minor amendment and that a fresh planning application would be required. The applicant was also advised that the omission of the flat roof element to the rear of the first floor side extension did not sufficiently overcome Officers previous concerns in design terms and that the scheme, if resubmitted, would be unlikely to be supported by Officers.

4.7 This proposed revision is now the subject of the current planning application (/003).


5.1 The following neighbours were consulted:

61 - 66, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75 Talbot Avenue NO OBJECTIONS RECEIVED

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 6.0 Character Appraisal

6.1 The proposal property is not located within a Conservation Area or other

designated area which is the subject of special planning control.

6.2 The proposal property itself is located at the end of Talbot Avenue, which is a long road, characterised by rows of post war semi detached two storey houses. There is not much variety in terms of house types or

Page 57


architectural styles either within the road itself or within the roads which feed off it. What is apparent is that for the most part the street scene remains largely unchanged with few examples of two storey side extensions. The intervening gaps and airspace between the existing properties remains largely intact.

6.3 Existing pairs of semi detached houses are separated by gaps of between 3 – 4 metres. These gaps increase in size at the end of the road around the vehicle turning head, where the subject property sits. The gap between the subject property and no.70 Talbot Road is approximately 8 metes at first floor level.

6.4 The subject property sits at the end of Talbot Road and occupies a prominent location. The open break/airspace between the original house and the neighbouring house at no. 70 creates a strong focal point when viewed from the approach road to the east. The proposal property is also highly visible from the neighbouring footpaths to the west and south west.

7.0 Policy Background 7.1 The application is considered in relation to:

• Planning Policy Statements 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and 3 (Housing)

• Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Submission Document, November 2007)

• Policies H14, H15, EN1, EN2 and T2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004

• Guidelines for Residential Extensions, 1994

Design and Street Scene Impact 7.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 states: “Planning authorities should plan

positively for the achievement of high quality design…..Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area…..should not be accepted.

7.3 The advice given in Planning Policy Statement 1 is repeated in Planning Policy Statement 3, which acknowledges the importance of good design in the achievement of high quality housing.

7.4 Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Submission Document, November 2007), states that: “All development will be of a high quality design and respect its location and surroundings”.

Page 58


7.5 Policy H15 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough sets out a number of criteria to be complied with in respect of proposals for extensions to existing dwelling houses; Criterion b) requires that proposals be of a high quality design and criterion c) requires that the proposals should have no significant adverse impact on the existing street scene or other public vantage points.

7.6 Policy EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan requires that development proposals : “reflect a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surroundings in terms of the criteria listed to that policy. With respect to the current planning application the following criteria are applicable: scale, height, massing/bulk, layout, siting, building form and design, architectural style, materials, visual impact, relationship to nearby properties. Poor designs which are not in keeping with their surroundings ………. will be refused”.

7.7 Policy EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan requires that “Proposals for extensions to existing buildings should be compatible with the scale, materials, form, design, fenestration, architectural style, layout and proportions of the original structure”………..

7.8 The proposal to increase the width of the first floor side extension by introducing a further step in the side wall would result in a double set down in the ridgeline. This type of design is inconsistent with development in the area. The proposal to continue the roof slope at the rear means that the eaves would fail to match the eaves of the original dwelling. The overall result is an irregular shaped extension and roof design. Taken together with the existing splayed front to side ground floor extension the overall result is one of poor inconsistent design. The proposal is considered to be out of keeping with the appearance of the original dwelling, the appearance of development in the local area and is considered to be harmful to the street scene and when viewed from the adjacent public footpath.

7.9 No objections are raised in design terms to the proposals for a flat roof single storey rear extension (this has already been approved under /001) or the pitched roof as proposed over the front extension. However, objections are raised to the proposed first floor side extension in terms its incongruous design and the mismatched eaves thereby detracting from the character and appearance of the original house and that of the general street scene, contrary to advice given in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Submission Document, November 2007) and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

Page 59


Amenity Space

7.10 No objections are raised in relation to Policy H14 of the Adopted Local

Plan in terms of amenity space provision, which meets the Councils approved Guidelines for Amenity Space round Residential properties (1990) in terms of retained rear amenity space.

Car Parking

7.11 The applicant has demonstrated three car parking spaces on site, which includes on car parking space within the existing garage which is being retained. Therefore, no objections are raised on grounds of car parking in relation to Policy T2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

PART C: RECOMMENDATION 8.0 Recommendation

8.1 Refuse 9.0 PART D: LIST OF REFUSAL REASON(S)

Reason(s)

1. The host property occupies a visually prominent location and the proposed first floor side extension by virtue of its stepped design coupled with the existing splayed ground floor extension and the mismatched eaves at the rear represents an incongruous design which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the original house and that of the general street scene, contrary to advice given in Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Submission Document, November 2007) and Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

Page 60


Applic. No: P/13593/005

Registration

Date:

27-Oct-2008 Ward: Kedermister

Officer: Mr Smyth

Applicant: Mr. M Khan

Agent: Mr. John A. Andrews, John Andrews Associates THE LODGE, 66, ST

LEONARD'S ROAD, WINDSOR, SL4 3BY

Location: 65, London Road, Slough, SL3 7RS

Proposal: ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION WITH

PITCHED ROOF, FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION WITH

PITCHED ROOF AND INSTALLATION OF A HIPPED AND

PITCHED ROOF TO SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION


AGENDA ITEM 8

Page 61


P/13593/003

1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION 1,1 This application would normally be determined by officers under the

approved scheme of delegation, however it has been called in by Ward Councillor Mann for determination by Planning Committee. The application has been called in on the basis that negotiations between Officers and the applicant have failed to produce a scheme which Officers consider to be acceptable in planning terms.

1.2 This application raises design and street scene issues and having considered the relevant Policies below, the development is considered to have an adverse affect on the sustainability and the environment for the reasons set out.

1.3 This application is being recommended for refusal for the reasons set out at the end of this report.


2.1 The current proposal is for the erection of a first floor side extension with

pitched roof, first floor rear extension with pitched roof and installation of a hipped and pitched roof to single storey front extension.

2.2 The extension is to provide a ground floor bedroom, wc, staircase and kitchen / family room extensions, at first floor an extension to the study, a bedroom and a master bedroom with en-suite in the loft.

2.3 The first floor side extension is set back 1250mm from the main front wall of the existing house. It is set off from the side boundary by 250mm. The first floor side extension has a depth of 6850mm and is 1900mm wide. The proposed first floor rear extension is set in from the side boundary by 1100mm. It is 4200mm wide X 4000mm deep. It has a low pitched and hipped roof, the ridge of which ties into the existing rear dormer.


3.1

The application site is situated on the north side of London Road close to its junction with Lynwood Avenue and comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a semi-circular bay window at both ground and first floor level. The roof to the original house was pitched and hipped with a small front gable above the bay window. However, the applicant has undertaken some construction works to the existing property. Changes have been undertaken to the roof altering it from a hipped roof, to a gable end property and a large rear dormer has been constructed. These works

Page 62


were undertaken by the applicant using his permitted development rights.

3.2 The shell of a single storey element of the wrap around front, side and rear extension has been constructed and roof timbers have been erected on top of the front element to the single storey side extension. These works, have been undertaken in accordance with a previously granted planning permission.

3.3 Part of the front garden has been laid to hard standing providing two off street parking spaces. The house is set on a spacious plot with a 27m deep rear garden. The front and side boundary is enclosed by a dwarf brick wall + 1m in height.

3.4 A detached garage is located in the rear garden adjoining the boundary with No. 67. The property has been extended with a single storey rear extension with a mono-pitched roof.

3.5 The adjoining semi-detached pair at Nos. 67 and 69 has been extended with a substantial single storey front, two-storey side and part single, part two-storey rear extensions. The front has been laid to hardsurface, whilst the dividing front boundary wall between Nos. 67 and 69 has been removed to provide and in out drive.

3.6 This part of London Road is predominantly residential. 67 London Road. A service station is located opposite the application site on the south side of London Road and also adjoining No. 77. The application site is not located within a residential area of exceptional character

4.0 Planning Background and History 4.1

P/13593/000 - Approved 9-MAY-2006 CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS TO CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE ROOF FROM HIP TO GABLE END AND CONSTRUCT A REAR DORMER WINDOW P/13593/001 - Withdrawn 28-JUL-2007 ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY FRONT, TWO STOREY SIDE AND PART TWO, PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION ALL WITH PITCHED ROOFS. CONVERSION OF ROOF SLOPE FROM HIP TO GABLE END AND INSTALLATION OF A REAR DORMER. ERECTION OF A FRONT AND SIDE BOUNDARY WALL P/13593/002 - Approved 27-FEB-2007 ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY FRONT, SIDE, PART SINGLE AND PART TWO STOREY REAR, ALL WITH PITCHED ROOFS P/13593/003 Refused 30th August 2007

Page 63


ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY FRONT, TWO STOREY SIDE AND PART TWO, PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, CHANGE OF ROOF FROM HIPPED TO GABLE END AND INSTALLATION OF REAR DORMER. P/13593/004 Approved 01 May 2008 ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

4.2 Members will note that there is a fairly extensive history with respect to this respect property. Of particular note are planning applications P/13593/001, P/13593/003 and P/13593/004. At some stage in the process all three applications contained a first floor side extension and Officer’s advice has been consistent with respect to this particular element of the proposals, whereby concerns have been raised about visual terracing and its impact on the general street scene.


5.1

63, 67 London Road 2 Lynwood Avenue

5.2 No objections have been received PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 6.0 Policy Background

6.1 The proposal is considered alongside Planning Policy Statement 1, Core

Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H14, H15, T2, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004 and the Council’s approved Guidelines for Residential Extensions: 1994 and Guidelines for the Provision of Amenity Space Around Residential Properties: 1990.

7.0 Design

7.1 The proposed two-storey side extension has been set back from the original property by 1.25 metres. The side extension projects to the side boundary and will be set off the boundary line by 250mm to accommodate a gutter. The adjoining property at No. 67 has a two-storey side extension and front extension maintaining only 100mm from side boundary with the application site

7.2 Notwithstanding the set back from the from main wall of the house, the first floor element of the side extension would result in the loss of the visual

Page 64


open gap and result in the visual terracing of two separate semi detached dwellings, to detract from the character and appearance of the original property, the surrounding area and the visual amenity of the street scene. It is believed that a ‘visual break’ is necessary between the two dwellings, in order to retain the form and dominance of the two separate semi detached properties.

7.3 As such the infilling of the spaces between traditional detached and semi-detached houses can detract from the character and rhythm of the street, and it is also believed to be the case with this proposed development. Closing the gap between the properties will not reflect the prevailing semi detached character of the area.

7.5 The roof to the first floor side extension has a shallow pitch, being set down some 2 metres from the main ridge. Given the degree of set down from the main roof and given that the main roof has been changed from a hipped roof to a gable end, the roof design now proposed does not sit comfortably alongside the existing house, nor within the existing street scene. Its design and scale are not in keeping with the existing house and appears incongruous in the context of the existing roofscape.

7.6 The proposals include a proposal to construct a pitched and hipped roof above the existing single storey front extension. Previously the front extension was approved with a mono pitch roof. It is considered that the proposal to change from a mono pitch roof, to a hipped and pitched roof would further complicate the appearance of the main house, which would display a multitude of different roof styles and designs without any obvious cohesion. It is noted that the single storey front extension at 67 London Road is constructed with a mono pitch roof.

7.7 There is a concern about the scale bulk massing and width of the proposed first floor rear extension with respect its proportionality and the need for such extensions to appear subordinate to the existing house. The proposed extension scales 4200mm which equates to 67% of the width of the original house. A similar width extension was proposed in relation to an earlier planning application (P/13593/004), but following concerns raised by officers was subsequently amended and reduced. Concern is also expressed about the poor interrelationship of the proposed extension with the existing rear dormer and the resulting multitude of vary roof designs and pitches.

8.0 Impact on Neighbours and Streetscene

8.1 No objections are raised to the proposed development on the basis of impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers by reason of overlooking, privacy and loss of sunlight, daylight or overshadowing.

Page 65


8.2 The proposed development is likely to set an undesirable precedent, leading to other such developments occurring. This would reduce the inconspicuous nature of the semi detached dwellings, and disrupt the concept of the visual break which is necessary for the street scene.

8.3 The need to try and avoid visual terracing is a basic planning principle, which has on occasions been supported by Appeal Inspectors. In a recent appeal case at 70 The Cherries, the Appeal Inspector concluded: “open space is an important layout element in its own right, and is enhanced by the additional spatial dimensions afforded by the distant views glimpsed through the gaps between terrace blocks surrounding the open space. The proposed side extension would further diminish one such gap to a degree that, here, the built form would all but become dominantly continuous. Consequently, that proposed would inharmoniously and incongruously compromise the street scene, and adversely impact upon a contributory element to the perceived qualities of the open space as to visually detract from and undermine the originally well conceived civic design attributes of the urban development hereabouts.”

8.4 Notwithstanding the fact that the first floor side extension is set back behind the front of the original building by 1.25m at first floor level, it will still significantly diminish the existing first floor visual gap between Nos. 65 and 67, resulting in an almost continuous built form and visual terracing of buildings to detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the character and appearance of the original property and surrounding area.

9.0 Highways

9.1 No issues are raised with respect to parking. 10.0 Summary

10.1 For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed

development would result in the closing of the visual gap that exists, thereby effectively giving rise to the visual terracing of buildings. The design of the roof for the proposed first floor side by virtue of design and disproportionate set down would detract from the character and appearance of the existing house and that of the general street scene. The design of the roof for the single storey front extension is inconsistent with style and design of the existing house and that of the existing street scene. The proposed first floor rear extension by virtue of its siting scale massing design lacks proportionality with the existing house and realtes poorly with the existing rear dormer. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H14, H15, T2, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004.

Page 66


PART C: RECOMMENDATION

11.0 Recommendation

11.1 Refuse for the reasons set out below. 12.0 12.1

PART D: REFUSAL REASONS a) The proposed two-storey side extension by reason of its siting in

proximity to the side boundary would close the visual gap, thereby resulting in the visual terracing of buildings to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing property, the surrounding area and the visual amenity of the street scene. As such, the proposal is considered to be represent poor design contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004.

b) The siting of the roof above the proposed first floor side extension

being set down substantially below the main ridge of the existing house and its design being pitched in contrast to the existing house which has a gable end, represents an incongruous design which is out of keeping with the existing house and that of the existing street scene contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004.

c) The design of the roof above the single storey front extension

being hipped and pitched does not reflect the character of the main house which has a gable end and when considered in conjunction with the proposals for a first floor side extension creates a multitude of varying roof designs and pitches which are not cohesive in appearance and thereby detract from the character and appearance of the existing house and that of the general street scene contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004.

d) The proposed first floor rear extension by virtue of its scale massing

and lack of proportionality with the existing house would appear overly dominant when viewed from the surrounding area. The interrelationship and design of the roof would relate poorly to the existing rear dormer and the resulting multitude of roof

designs and pitches would result in a development which detracts

Page 67


from the appearance of the existing house and that of the surrounding area contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006 –

2026) Development Plan Document December 2008, Policies H15, EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough: 2004.

Page 68


Applic. No: P/14467/000

Registration

Date:

20-Oct-2008 Ward: Upton

Officer: Fariba Ismat

Applicant: Mr M.A. Khan

Agent:

Location: 42, Park Lane, Slough, SL3 7PF

Proposal: ERECTION OF PART SINGLE / PART DOUBLE STOREY SIDE TO

REAR EXTENSION AND TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH

A MIXTURE OF HIPPED AND PITCHED ROOFS, LOFT

CONVERSION INCLUDING TWO SKY LIGHTS AND FRONT

PORCH WITH PITCHED ROOF


AGENDA ITEM 9

Page 69


P/14467/000


1.1 This application is a householder application which would normally be determined by officers under the approved scheme of delegation; however it has been called in for determination by Planning Committee on the request of Councillor Balvinder Bains for the following reasons:

- I have visited the site and feel that these proposals are reasonable for a detached property in the area due to other extensions we have recently allowed.

- Mr. Khan should be allowed 4.25m deep first floor rear extension. - Should be allowed to build as per his existing plan.

1.2 Having considered the relevant Policies below, the development is

considered to have and adverse affect on the sustainability and the environment for the reasons set out in the report below.

1.3 The application is being recommended for refusal for the reasons as set

out at the end of this report.

PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal 2.1 The applicant proposes to erect a part single/part double storey side-to-

rear extension part hipped/part crowned roof, double storey rear extension with pitched roof, loft conversion with 6 veluxe windows and front porch with pitched roof. The ground floor side-to-rear extension would be extended to the boundary line and the first floor side-to-rear extension would set in from the boundary line by 0.80m. The proposal provides one parking space within an integral garage, but no parking plan has been submitted with the application. A site visit has confirmed that the property has a partly hard surfaced front garden that could be used to provide a second car parking space.

2.2 In the original proposal, there were two side windows at ground and first floor level facing property no. 44 possibly affecting their privacy and the side extension was proposed with a double pitched roof which was not considered to be acceptable in terms of design. The applicant has since amended the proposal by relocating the two windows to avoid the privacy impact on the neighbouring property at no. 44 and has changed the roof design of the proposed double pitched roof for the side extension to a single part hipped/part crowned roof to improve the design and appearance of the roof and the dwelling as whole.

Page 70


3.0 Application Site 3.1 The proposal site is occupied by a two storey detached dwelling located

on the southern side of Park Lane. The property has a side garage with lean-to roof that would be demolished to make way for the two storey side extension. The front garden of the property is partly hard surfaced and is capable of accommodating one parking space. The property has a substantial rear garden.

3.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential. Park Lane itself is characterised by detached properties.

4.0 Neighbour Notification 4.1 The neighbours at Nos. 25, 27, 40, 44 Park Lane and at Nos. 62, 64

Upton Court Road were notified of the application. Two letters of objection have been received from Nos. 44 and 40 Park Lane with the following objections: Objections from neighbours at no. 44 Park Lane:

1. The erection of a two storey rear extension will have a highly detrimental effect on the amount of daylight in my kitchen/dinning room, as it will obscure most of the sky and turn a bright sunny kitchen/dinning room into a dull depressing one. This will necessitate a greater dependence on artificial light and subsequently, higher electricity bills.

2. The provision of two windows, ground and first floor, facing my kitchen/dinning room. Although these may be fitted with opaque glass, they will be able to open and therefore impinge on my privacy. I have lived here for 37 years and feel these windows will be intrusive and I am not comfortable with this proposal.

3. I believe the construction of these houses was designed to give privacy to the neighbouring one, as it is at present, and which I would very much like to retain.

Objections from neighbours at no. 40 Park Lane:

1. The objectors wanted to know if the garage would be used as

garage and could it legally later be turned into habitable living space.

2. We do not want any over-hanging guttering or building. We therefore would request that the maximum allowable space

Page 71


between our two dwellings is maintained. If the guttering is going to exceed the 250mm gap normally required by the Council, then a larger gap needs to be retained between their extension and our boundary wall.

3. Any extension to the rear or to the side should be within regulation i.e. 4.25m from the original dwelling and not from the lean-to/conservatory that currently exists at the rear of the property.

4. Another related concern was the adequacy of parking if there were multiple occupants within the extended premises. At present most households are able to park one car in their driveway and have another two cars parked in front of their premises. If there were to be multiple families/residents within this extended dwelling, then this could cause potential parking issues with local residents.

5. We also note the drawings we viewed may be altered at a later date and so we would be grateful if you could ensure that any changes to this specification are brought to our attention.

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 5.0 Policy Background 5.1 The application is considered in relation to:

• National Planning Policies: Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development)

• Core Policies 7 and 8 (Sustainability and the Environment) of Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Submission Document, November 2007;

• Policies EN1, EN2, H14, H15, T2 and Parking Standards of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004;

• Council’s approved Guidelines for Residential Extensions, 1994; and

• Council’s approved Guidelines for Provision of Amenity Space around Residential Properties, 1990.

6.0 Design and Appearance/ Impact on Street Scene

6.1 The proposed front porch would be built with a pitched roof which is

considered to be compatible with the pitched roof of the main building and its design, height and scale is considered to be in proportion with the original house and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

6.2 The proposed two storey side-to-rear extension at the ground floor level would be set in from the boundary line by 0.20cm and would be built to a

Page 72


width of 3.3m with a mono-pitched roof over the proposed garage and along the depth of the side extension to a height of 3.5m. At first floor level the proposed side extension would be set in from the boundary line by 0.80cm and would be built to a width of 2.5m with a part hipped/part crowned roof to a height of 7.8m. The roof height of the proposed two storey side extension would be set below the ridge of the main house by 0.40m. The applicant has changed the design of the roof on the two storey side extension from a double pitched roof to a single part hipped/part crowned roof. This change in roof design would improve the appearance of the side extension within the existing street scene.

6.3 The design and appearance of the proposed part single/part double storey side extension is considered to respect and be in keeping with the design and appearance of the main building. In terms of size and scale is considered to be subordinate to the main building and is not believed to impact the street scene in a negative way. As such the design and appearance of the proposed two storey side extension is considered to be acceptable.

6.4 The design and appearance of the proposed two storey rear extension in terms of bulk, size, width and depth is not considered to be acceptable in that the 4.25m depth and 8.8m width of the proposed rear extension at first floor level is considered to be excessively deep and wide. Is considered to result in an extension that would be too bulky, overbearing and would detract from the character of the original dwellinghouse.

6.5 As such the proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its scale bulk and massing would be contrary to PPS1, Core Policy 8 of LDF and policy EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004 in terms of design and appearance.

7.0 Impact on Neighbours 7.1 The application, as amended (plans received on the 5/12/2008) raises

issues regarding visual dominance resulting from a breach of a 45 degree line of sight in respect of an existing ground floor flank wall dining room window belonging to the neighbouring property at no. 44 Park Lane, and thereby has a detrimental impact on their living conditions. The two storey rear extension would also result in some loss of light and sunlight to that dining room window principally during the late afternoon and early evening period.

7.2 There would no significant adverse impact on the neighbouring property at no. 40 Park Lane. The proposed side-to-rear extension would be set in from the boundary line by 0.20m. This gap would be sufficient to

Page 73


accommodate an eves detail with narrow gutter. The two proposed windows facing no. 40 at first floor level would be obscurely glazed and therefore is not considered to impact their privacy. This is a matter which would normally be covered by planning condition.

7.3

The applicant has revised the proposal and has submitted revised plans on 5th December 2008 which shows the relocation of the two side window The relocation of the window has helped reduce the negative impact on neighbouring no. 44 in terms of privacy.

8.0 Amenity Space 8.1 The Council’s approved guidelines for Provision of Amenity Space around

Residential Properties, 1990 set out that for a house with 4 bedrooms a minimum private rear garden depth of 15m is to be provided. If the 15m depth cannot be achieved because of irregular boundaries, a relaxation of this standard may be allowed provided that the garden size exceeds 100 square metres.

8.2 The subject property would retain a back garden of approximately 26m long x 11m wide after the construction of the extension. The retained back garden complies with above Guidelines requirement and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

9.0 Parking: 9.1 To comply with the Council’s parking guidelines, as per Policy T2 of the

Adopted Local Plan for Slough for a 4+ bedroom house there is a requirement for three on site car parking spaces. Whilst that the Council has some discretion with respect to parking requirements as set out in PPG 13, given that this would become a 5 bedroom house and given the existing on street car parking problems in the area, a requirement for three on site car parking spaces would be appropriate in this instance.

9.3 The applicant has not submitted a car parking plan, however, it is apparent that one car parking space can be accommodated in the garage and there is scope for a further car parking space within the front garden. A holding objection is raised subject to the submission of a car parking plan showing spaces for three parked cars, accessed off a single vehicular/pedestrian crossover.

10.0 Summary 10.1 It is considered that the proposed erection of a double storey rear

extension would result in a large and bulky extension that would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties especially neighbouring property at no. 44 and would breach the 45 degree line of

Page 74


sight for no. 44 as well. The proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its size (depth and width) is also not considered to be acceptable as it would result in a bulky extension that would detract from the design and appearance of the main dwelling. As such the proposal is not considered to be acceptable and is considered contrary to PPS1, Core Policies 7 and 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Submission Document, Nov 2007) and Policies EN1, EN2, H15, T2 and the Parking Standards of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004); therefore not acceptable and is recommended for refusal for the following reasons.

PART C: RECOMMENDATION

11.0 Recommendation 11.1 Refusal 12.0 PART D: REFUSAL REASONS 12.1 (1) The proposed two storey rear extension by virtue of its excessive

scale bulk and massing would appear overly dominant and impact on the outlook for the neighbouring occupiers and in particular the neighbouring occupiers at 44 Park contrary to Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Submission Document, Nov 2007), Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough (2004) and Council’s approved Guidelines for Residential Extensions, 1994. (2) The proposes two storey rear extension by virtue of its excessive scale bulk massing width and depth would result in a bulky extension that would detract from the character and appearance of the original house and that of the surrounding area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Planning policy 1 Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Submission Document, Nov 2007) and Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of the Local Plan for Slough (2004) (3) The applicant has failed to demonstrate through the submission of a parking layout plan, that the site is capable of accommodating 3 no. car parking spaces, resulting in the need to park on street in a part of Slough which already experiences high demand for on street parking, thereby prejudicing the free flow of traffic on the neighbouring highway and general highway safety, contrary to Policy T2, of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004 and Core Policy 7 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Submission Document, Nov 2007).

Page 75

SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT TO: Planning Committee DATE: 20th January 2009 CONTACT OFFICER: David Scourfield, Head of Development Control (For all Enquiries) (01753) 875866 WARD(S): All

PART I

FOR INFORMATION

UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE REGARDING SPEED OF DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS, AND ON STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS

1. Purpose of Report

To update Members on the performance of the Planning section on National Performance Indicators relating to the speed of determination of Major planning applications (NI 157a), Minor planning applications (NI 157b) and Other planning applications – which includes householder applications (NI 157c). The report will also cover details regarding recent recruitment and interim management measures within Development Control.

2. Recommendation The Committee is requested to note the contents of the report.

3. Community Strategy Priorities

• Celebrating Diversity, Enabling inclusion The monitoring of the speed of determination of planning applications forms a central part in the governments approach to ensuring excellence in customer service. Meeting and exceeding government National Performance Indicators is one method of demonstrating good quality customer service and promoting inclusion.

• Adding years to Life and Life to years The efficient determination of planning applications and assessment of impact can have a significant impact on the quality of life and life opportunities for young people.

• Being Safe, Feeling Safe

• A Cleaner, Greener place to live, Work and Play The consideration of all planning applications involves the appraisal of impacts on the local environment and the implementation of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that the environment of local neighbourhoods is maintained and enhanced so that people can both be and feel safe.

AGENDA ITEM 10

Page 77

• Prosperity for All The efficient determination of planning applications, through adequate staffing has a direct impact on individual applicants and local communities. Whilst major planning applications account for only a small percentage of the overall application workload, their impact on local communities can be considerable. Improving overall performance within this category will help to ensure that local people are fully consulted on proposals.

Planning applications, particularly Major ones can have a significant impact on the town’s economy and on the prosperity of local areas and expedient decision making would contribute to the towns overall prosperity.

4. Other Implications (a) Financial

No significant financial implications with regard to the speed of determination of planning applications. If the Council fails to meet the targets set by the Government there could be detrimental implications for the level of next year’s Housing and Planning Delivery Grant allocation. Whilst the Grant allocation has moved towards criteria concerning housing provision and the progress of the LDF, failure to meet the NI targets could result in a lower grant allocation. In terms of staffing the change from agency staff to permanent members of staff has a positive impact on budgets in terms of overall cost savings.

(b) Human Rights Act and Other Legal Implications

There are no specific issues arising as a result of this report.

(c) Workforce

The recruitment of additional permanent members of staff will help secure the long term quality of the Development Control service, particularly in relation to customer service and the consideration of planning applications.

5. Supporting Information PERFORMANCE 5.1 Appendix A to this report sets out performance against the three major planning

application categories, for the first three quarters of the current audit year (2008/09) and for the six years preceding this.

5.2 Taking the Minor and Other categories on planning applications first, Members are advised that, once again, performance has been maintained at a standard very much higher than the required target. 92% of ‘Other’ applications were dealt within the 8-week period, for current year to date ending 31st December 2008 compared to 91% for the previous full year (2007/08). For Minor applications, the

Page 78

current year to date figure of 88% is marginally up on the previous years final figure of 82% and is still well above Government targets of 65%.

5.3 The Majors performance has been strong for the last few years. Compared to the year-end (2007/08) figure of 76%, the figure for this year to date of 75% is slightly down on last year but still well exceeds the Governments target of 60%. It is likely though there may be a downward trend on this figure for the next 6 months. This is not to do with performance as such, more to do with the amount of ‘older’ majors that are still ‘live’ but out of time. These have had complicated s106 agreements on them which have taken some time to resolve. As the agreements become sealed and permissions therefore granted, this has an adverse affect on this performance figure. The matter is made somewhat worse as there is now only a limited counter balancing effect from issuing consents on newer major applications that are dealt with in time. The fact is that with the economic conditions the number of new major applications has significantly dropped. As such there are fewer new majors to decide within time as a counter balance to the older major applications coming up for decision.

5.4 At present there are 32 ‘live’ major applications. Of these 25 are ‘out of time’. Of these 7 are effectively not being worked on (i.e. no follow up from the applicant for some time) – and are likely to be withdrawn at some stage). There are potentially therefore 18 older applications that may require a decision at some future stage. Each of these will therefore be decided over the time target. Thus the determination of each of these applications will have to be managed to ensure they are not all decided within one quarter. If for instance all of these applications were to be decided in Quarter 4, without any new majors being decided within time, the performance figure would drop to 44%. This is extremely unlikely to happen but shows that the performance figure is very dependant on the management of older workload rather than the quality management of newer applications

5.5 The continued improvement and good performance on these NI’s is a result of the performance culture now displayed within the planning service. It is also a measure of the cooperative working of members and the Planning Committee in respect of Call-Ins and decisive decision making at each Committee meeting.

5.6 It should be noted that this is the fourth year running that all three indicators on performance under NI 157 should be met. It is important that this performance is maintained as there is an indication that the Government may be raising the target on all three application categories. It is anticipated that for the year 2010/11 the target may be 80% for all categories. However, this has yet to be confirmed. STAFFING

5.7 As members may know the current Head of Development Control leaves the

Council, his last work for Slough BC being this Committee meeting. Arrangements have been put in place for the position to be covered on an interim basis for at least a six month period. Mr Alan McMillen will be joining the Planning Service from 19th January 2009. Alan has a strong background in Planning and local authority senior management and has worked for Sloughs Planning team over the last year on several detailed planning projects.

Page 79

5.8 The Autumns recruitment process for Development Control and Policy Planners has been successful. On the policy side an LDF Team Leader has been recruited. This is a key post and will help secure the continued success in bring forward other Development Plan Documents following the Core Strategy being found Sound. Within Development Control a further two senior planning officers have been recruited. This substantially boosts the experience within the two area planning teams.

6. Comments of Other Committees

None. 7. Conclusion It is anticipated that Slough Borough Council will continue to meet and exceed its

performance standards on NI 157 during the forthcoming audit year 2008/09. In addition the recruitment of additional planners helps secure the sustainability of the Planning Service.

8. Appendix Attached

‘A’ - Development Control Performance Control Performance: NI 157 (formerly BVPI 109).

9. Background Papers None.

Page 80

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERFORMANCE: NI 157 (FORMERLY BVPI 109) 2008/09 TO DATE (Figures in bold exceed target)

APPLICATION TYPES

BVPI TARGET

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09 TO DATE (Q1-Q3)

MAJOR

60%

27

30

22%

67%

86%

76%

75%

MINOR

65%

58

66

90%

85%

91%

82%

88%

OTHER

INCLUDES HOUSEHOLDERS

80%

74

77

92%

93%

94%

91%

92%

Page 8

1

23rd September 2008 Slough Borough Council Planning Committee

SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 20th January 2009

PART 1

FOR INFORMATION

Planning Appeal Decisions Set out below are summaries of the appeal decisions received recently from the Planning Inspectorate on appeals against the Council’s decisions. Copies of the full decision letters are available from the Members Support Section on request. These decisions are also monitored in the Quarterly Performance Report and Annual Review.

WARD(S) ALL

Application Ref

Appeal Decision

P/13710/003 2d Oldway Lane Single storey rear extension

Appeal dismissed 8th December 2008

Enforcement 222 High Street Langley Breach of planning without permission the erection of 8 x 2 bedroom flats, 3 x 1 bedroom flats and the formation in the roof space of an extra 1 bedroom flat

Appeal allowed and the enforcement notice quashed Costs allowed 16th December 2008

P/03161/003 88-90 Oatlands Drive Alterations / additions and conversion of 2 dwellings into 3 dwellings with associated parking and private gardens

Appeal Dismissed 23rd December 2008

AGENDA ITEM 11

Page 83

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES, BREACH OF CONDITION NOTICES, SECTION 215

NOTICES

ON

GO

ING

TO

DA

TE

(2

0.0

1.0

9)

Pla

nnin

g

Refe

rence

and

Offic

er

Legal

Ref/

Offic

er

Addre

ss

And

Activity

Deta

ils o

f actions

Pla

nnin

g p

refa

ced (P)

Legal pre

faced (L)

2007/0009

2

BL

6 Salt Hill Drive

2nd Storey rear ext. Side

Dorm

er . Front canopy.

(P) Instructions sent to legal and land charges 04/06/08.

(P) Breach of Condition Notice Served 22 July 2008.

(P) Compliance due 24 January 2009.

2007/0003

5

NC

222, High Street Langley

Enforcement Notice

(P) Enforcement Notice served 29 May 2008.

(P) Compliance due 30 September 2008.

(P) Appeal Received.

2007/0039

1

BL

65 Northern Road

2nd Storey side extension

(P) Planning enforcement notice served 15 may 2008.

(P) Compliance due 16 September 2008.


(P) Appeal dismissed, compliance due 27 May 2009.

2006/0034

4

BL

191 Humber Way

Rear Outbuilding

(P) Memo sent to legal and Land charges. 12 May 2008

(P) Planning enforcement notice served 29 may 2008

Compliance due 14 October 2008.


(P) Appeal dismissed and Notice varied, compliance due 27 February 2009

2007/0026

9

BL

89 Paxton Avenue

Breach of Condition

(P) Memo sent to legal and Land charges. 12 May 2008

(P) BOC Notice Served 29 May 2008.

(P) Compliance by 29 August 2008.

(P) New application received.

2007/0025

9

BL

1 Birch Grove

Unauthorised W

all

(P) Memo sent to legal and land charges. 10 April 2008.

(P) Enforcement Notice Served 13 August 2008.

(P)Compliance due 13 October 2008.

(P) Appeal received.

AGENDA ITEM 12

Page 85

2007/0001

2

NFC

SH

62, Wellesley Road, Slough

Unauthorised Development

outbuilding on a HMO

(P) Legal instructed and land charges on 13/7/07.

(P) Legal acknowledged instructions 20/8/07

(P) Draft notice sent by legal 28/8/07 returned 4/9/07

(L) Served on 21/11/07 – Time for compliance 23/03/2008


(P) Appeal Dismissed.

(P) Compliance Due 14 November 2008.

2006/0036

3

NFC

SH

T3/621

The Flags, 43 Church

Street, Chalvey

Unauthorised use of car

park for car wash

(P) Legal instructed 2/5/07

(P) Land Charges inform

ed 18/5/07

(P) Legal have sent draft notice and requested additional plans. Sent 26/7/07.

(L) Served on 16/11/07 – Time for compliance 17/01/2008.

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) Appeal Dismissed, Compliance 25 July 2008

2006/0045

5

NFC

SH

T3/618

171, Stoke Road, Slough

Change of use- car wash at

rear of property

(P) Legal instructed and Land Charges inform

ed 10/4/07.

(P) Legal acknowledged instructions 8/5/07.

(P) Memo to planning asking a series of questions.

(P) Questions answered and plans sent to legal 4/9/07.

(L) EN served on 11/12/2007. Time for compliance 11/02/2008.

(P) Prosecution papers being prepared.

2005/0012

6

NFC

SH

T3/600

27 Stoke Road, Slough.

Unauthorised rear extension (P) Legal instructed and land charges inform

ed 15/12/06.

(L) Instructions not received by legal

(P) Further set of instructions sent 21/3/07

(P) Legal acknowledged receipt of instructions 26/3/07

(P) Further set of instructions sent 24/4/07

(P) Enforcement notice served 1/5/07, effective 4/6/07 compliance by 4/8/07.

(P) Appeal lodged

(P) Appeal dismissed, compliance by 07/03/08.

(P) Negotiations with owner and Environmental health underway.

2006/0024

4

NFC

SQ

27 Stoke Road, Slough.

Unauthorised compressor at

rear

(P) Legal instructed and land charges inform

ed 15/12/06.

(L) Notice drafted and sent for approval on 15/02/07

(P) Notice corrected and returned to legal 19/2/07

(P) Enforcement notice served 12/3/07, effective 16/4/07 compliance by 16/6/07.

(P) Appeal lodged


(P) Negotiations with owner and Environmental health underway.

Page 86

2006/0006

4

NFC

SQ

307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass,

Slough

Change of Use storage of

portable modular units


ed 9/11/06.


(P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions.

(P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results

have been passed to SQ.

(P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07.

(P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07

(P) Appeal lodged

(P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council.

(P) Injunction proceedings being prepared.

2006/0006

4a

NFC

SQ


Slough

Development portable

modular units


ed 9/11/06.


(P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to

and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to

SQ.



(P) Appeal lodged



2006/0008

2

NFC

SQ


Slough

Development hardstanding


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged



35 Hillersdon

Slough

Change of use to flats

(P) Enforcement Notice served 9

th December 2008, C0mpliance 6

th April 2009.

50 Northern Road

Slough

(P) Section 215 Notice 10th December 2008, Compliance 4

th February 2009.

Page 87

2006/0041

9

NFC

SQ


Slough

Change of Use

storage

of a travelling caravan


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged



2006/0041

7

NFC

SQ


Slough

Development creation of a

compound using double

stacked shipping containers


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged



2006/0041

6

NFC

SQ


Slough

Development creation of a

storage facility using double

stacked shipping containers


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged



Page 88

2006/0006

6

NFC

SQ


Slough

Development fencing over 2

metres


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged

(P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance, 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council.


2006/0008

2a

NFC

SQ

T3/595


Slough

Development weighbridge


ed 9/11/06.







(P) Appeal lodged

Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council.


2006/0041

8

NFC

SH

T3/604

20 W

exham Road, Slough

Unauthorised erection of a

rear garden wall

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges inform

ed – 11/10/06

(P) Legal requested further instructions – resent – 22/11/06

(P) Legal requested further set of instructions sent 24/01/07

(L) Drafts sent to planning 15/02/07

(P) Draft corrected and returned 19/2/07.

(P) Notice served 26/3/7, effective 30/4/7 for compliance by 30/7/7

(P) No action taken pending outcome of appeal in relation to the following entry.

Page 89

2006/0025

6

NFC

20 W

exham Road, Slough


rear detached structure


ed – 11/10/06

(P) Legal requested further instructions – resent – 22/11/06

(P) Legal requested further set of instructions sent 24/01/07

(L) Drafts sent to planning 15/02/07

(P) Draft corrected and returned 19/2/07.


(P) Appeal lodged

(P) Appeal dismissed, full award of costs awarded to the Council.

(P) Compliance 15/07/08

(P) Appeal being prepared by Appellant for Judicial Review

2002/0024

0

NFC

SH

T3/584

Land adjacent to 12 Elbow

Meadows, Colnbrook.

Change of use of land to

commercial


ed 19/9/06


(L) Draft approved – service imminent 21/02/07

(P) Enforcement notice served 2/4/07, effective 7/5/07 compliance by 8/8/07

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) Appeal dismissed, full award of costs to Council.

2006/0037

7

NFC

SH

T3/585

46 Cockett Road, Slough


single storey side and rear

extension


ed 19/9/06


(P) Meeting with legal to discuss issues – 30/11/06

(P) Legal requested further copies of plans and photographs 14/12/06. Supplied

15/12/06.

(P) Notice served 16/1/07, effective 20/2/07 for compliance 20/6/07.

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) Appeal dismissed 16/8/07. New compliance date 16/12/07.

(P) Papers being prepared for Legal for non compliance.

2006/0133

NFC

54/56 Canterbury Avenue,

Slough.

Change of use of domestic

garage to commercial use,

tyre fitting/storage.

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges Inform

ed 27/03/06.


(P) Draft Notice corrected and returned to Legal 23/6/06.

(P) Notice served 17/8/06, effective 21/9/06 for compliance by 21/12/06.

(P) Appeal lodged

(P) Hearing date 12/4/07.

(P) Hearing adjourned to 30/5/07

(P) Hearing took place result awaited.

(P) Appeal dismissed. New compliance date of 5/4/08.

(P) New Planning application received.

(P) Application refused, prosecution papers being prepared.

Page 90

2005/0033

1

NFC

T3/381a

DP

35 Montem Lane, Slough

Enforcement Notice for

operational development


ed 9/11/05

(L) Requisition sent 14th June 2006.

(L) Draft notice to planning for approval 14th June 2006.


(L) 10.07.06 - EJ instructed by SQ not to issue notice for time being – in light of petition

received. SQ will advise EJ, when notice can be issued.


(P) Appeal lodged


2008/0018

8

BL

CFT3/66

4

1 Ember Road, Langley

Development not in

accordance with approved

plans.

(P) Breach of Condition Notice served 2

nd October 2008, Compliance due 3rd January

2009.

2007/0032

7

BL

CFT/T3/6

68

108 Bowyer Drive, Slough,

Unauthorised erection of

roof terrace and balcony.

(P) Enforcement Notice Served 6

th November 2008, Compliance due 3rd February 2009.


2008/0014

6

BL

CFT/T3/6

65

76 St Georges Crescent,

Slough.

Change of use from

residential to commercial

car repairs.

(P) Enforcement Notice Served 6

th November 2008, Compliance 4

th March 2009.

2008/0017

3

BL

CFT/T3/6

66

245 Humber Way, Langley.


single storey rear

outbuilding.



th March 2009.

2008/0005

5

BL

CF/T3/36

6

64 Farnham Road, Slough.

Unauthorised change of use

for the commercial repairing,

storing and maintenance of

motor vehicles.



th January 2009.

Page 91

2008/0022

2

BL

CFT/T3/6

71

10 Yew Tree Road, Slough.


to a house in multiple

occupation and the

unauthorised erection of a

single storey rear extension.

(P) Enforcement Notice served 18th November 2008, Compliance 16th March 2009.

2008/0032

8

NFC

CFT/T3/6

71

3a Church Street, Slough.


to a private hire – mini cab

booking office and the

installation of a radio aerial.

(P) Enforcement Notice served 17th November 2008, Compliance 15th March 2009.

2008/0026

1

BL

CFT3/67

4

75 Stoke Poges Lane,

Slough.

Unsightly rear metal fencing.

(P) Section 215 Notice served 25th November 2008, Compliance 19th January 2009.

2008/0025

6

BL

CFT3/67

5

37 Mulberry Drive, Langley.

Development not carried out

in accordance with

approved plans.

(P) Breach of Condition Notice served 25th November 2008, Compliance 25th March 2009.

GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS

PLANNING

LEGAL

General

EJ = Elizabeth Jenkins

RA – Raheela Ali

HMO = House in Multiple Occupation

AB = Amanda Ball

PA = Planning Application

BL = Bob Lee JRB= John Bell

BOC = Breach of Condition

MB = Mathew Brown

WM = W

esley McCarthy

DP = Dawn Pelle

RK = Roger Kirkham

NC = Nigel Craske

SH = Sadia Hussain

JB = Jill Bell

BT = Brian Tandy

Page 92

LITIG

ATIO

N, FAILURE TO COMPLY W

ITH A NOTICE, ADVERTISIN

G

ONGOIN

G TO DATE (20.01.09)

Planning

Referen

ce

and

Officer

Legal

Referen

ce

and

Officer

Address

And

Activity

Details of actions

Planning prefaced (P)

Legal prefaced (L)

2006/0038

2

BL

JRB

T3/619

Land Adj. 100 W

aterbeach

Road

Unauthorised erection of

Building containing residential

Flats.

(P) Legal instructed and Land Charges Inform

ed 27/3/07.

(P) JB

has forw

arded a m

emo seeking further inform

ation dated 3/5/07.

(P) Reply to forgoing sent 9/5/07

(P) Legal requested 12 copies of plan in m

emo dated 15/5/07

(P) Plans sent to legal as requested.

(P) Enforcem

ent Notice served 13/6/07, effective 16/7/07 compliance by 16/10/07.

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) App/J0350/c/07/2050463. The Planning Inspectorate refuse the appeal. Not valid by Tim

e.

Prosecution to be commenced.

(P) No compliance. Prosecution papers being prepared.

(P) Prosecution Case File to, Tania Fletcher, W

ednesday 14 Novem

ber 2007

(L) Prosecution considered and will continue. TEF to arrange filing of documents to be served.

(L) Proceedings filed 29.11.07. first call 18.01.08. TEF awaiting documents to be returned then to

prepare for Planning to serve

(L) docs ready to serve TEF to give to planning

(L) docs served

(L) first call 18.01.08. defendant did not appear. Adjourned to 15.02.08. warrant to follow if non

attendance.

(L) Adjourned until 13 June 2008.

(L) Pleaded guilty, £4.500 fine, £450 costs.

(L) The owners agent has been m

ade aw

are that we are monitoring the situation. M

eeting arranged

for 15 September 2008 to discuss regularisation application to be submitted.

Page 93

2006/0043

0

BL

JRB

T3/602

8 M

iddlegreen Road Slough

Unauthorised Development

Front Wall

(P) Legal Instructed and Charges Inform

ed 17 October 2006

(P) Notified that John Bell dealing. 16 Novem

ber 2006

(L) Sight line issue – waiting on planning

(P) Plans forw

arded to legal 19/3/07.

(P) Enforcem

ent notice served 10/4/07, effective 15/5/07 compliance by 15/8/07.

(P) Notice not complied with. Prosecution papers prepared and m

oved to Part 11

(L) TEF to locate file and discuss next week

(L) Proceedings filed 29.11.07. first call 18.01.08. TEF awaiting documents to be returned then to

prepare for Planning to serve (N

B see below m

atters filed together)

(L) docs ready to serve TEF to give to planning

(L) docs served

(L) Contact from those concerned disputing validity of Notice.

(L) Notice served 02. 10. 08, takes effect 30. 10. 08, 3 m

onths given for compliance.

2005/0026

0

DM

L16/025

011219

Rhea's Indian Cuisine, 295-

297, High Street, Slough

Shutters

(P) Legal Instructed and Land Charges inform

ed. 30/8/05

(L) acknowledgem

ent of instructions sent out on 22/09

(L) Requisitions sent out to 8 parties on 5/10/05

(L) SH to draft Enforcem

ent Notice

(L) Enforcem

ent notice served 6/1/06, effective 6/2/06 for compliance 6/4/06, Land Charges

inform

ed

(P) Site visit required to establish if compliance has been achieved.

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) Appeal dismissed. New

date for compliance 18/12/06.

(P) No compliance m

oved to Part 11.

(P) Prosecution papers being prepared.

(P) Prosecution papers signed by David Scourfield 18/5/07 and forw

arded to legal the same day.

(P) Legal Acknowledged instructions 7/8/07.

(L) as above

(L) File located. TEF has requested NC carry out a site visit.

(L) NC doing a pre-action letter

(P) NC m

eeting with new

occupier on 17.01.08

(P) planning in discussions about the way forw

ard. No legal action required at this stage.

Page 94

2004/0060

6

DM

EJ/T3/472

Land W

est of Poyle

Road/South of Poyle Channel,

Colnbrook.

Change of use of land for siting

of caravans.

(P) Legal instructed and enforcem

ent notice served 24/11/04. Notice takes effect 24/12/04 for

compliance by 24/3/05.

(L) Appeal papers received and forw

arded to planning 22/12/04.

(P) Appeal lodged.

(P) Appeal withdrawn. New

date for compliance 30/9/05.

(P) Letter sent to operator 18/10/05.

(P) As this m

atter is inter-linked with an identical issue on an adjoining site and that m

atter is the

subject of Judicial Review all further work re enforcem

ent is on hold.

(P) Prosecution papers prepared and forw

arded to legal 29/11/06 m

oved to Part 2

(P) Legal acknowledged instructions 19/1/07

(L) as above

(L) waiting for instructions from planning, going to consolidate the files early in 2008 to have a

clear idea of what is going on

(L) Site visited by Planning, papers being prepared for prosecution for non compliance

(L) Summonses being drafted, in Court M

ay 2008

(L) In Court 25 July 2008 for Plea.

(L) 2 day trial fixed for 11 and 12 February 2009.

2006/0000

1

BL

2 Upton Court Road

S215 Action. Storage/parking

motor vehicles.

(P) Legal instructed and Land Charges inform

ed 27/02/06


(L) Requisitions sent 10.3.06 File passed to JRB

(P) Draft notice agreed and returned to legal w/e 14/7/06

(P) Sec 215 Notices served 27 July 2006. Compliance date. 3 September 2006.

(P) No compliance. Prosecution papers prepared and m

oved to Part 11

(P) KKC has requested a m

eeting with BL. Yet to be arranged.

(P) Attended court on 6 September 2007. Plea of guilty. Fined £720 with £1500 costs. W

ill

monitor the property for post conviction compliance.

(L) meeting TEF and NC – NC to m

onitor compliance

(L) Bob Lee to provide up to date statem

ent

(L) statem

ent provided, we are waiting on a land registry search and a record of conviction then

we will be able to file proceedings for continued non compliance.

(L) Papers being prepared for prosecution for non compliance.

(L) Adjourned for representations. Next Court date 11th July 2008

(L) Pleaded not guilty, next Court date 5 Novem

ber 2008.

(L) Convicted guilty at Court. Fined £2500.00 and ordered to pay costs of £584.61

Page 95

DM

EJ/T3/306

Poyle Recycling Centre, Poyle

Rd. Slough

Unauthorised use of land for

storage and recycling.

(P) Legal instructed 13/8/98.

(P) Enforcem

ent Notice issued and served 25/8/99 for compliance on various dated ending on

23/9/00.

(P) Appeal lodged and dismissed.

(L) Judicial Review dismissed. New

compliance dates as follows: - 8/10/02 to cease use for

recycling, 17/1/03 to rem

ove scrap/soil etc., 18/4/03 topsoil area and sow grass seed.

(P) Notice not complied with and instructions to legal to commence a prosecution on 6/1/04.

(P) Whilst there is no compliance prosecution is on hold pending confirm

ation from legal that

notices that will be required to be served under PACE are acceptable.

(P) Although the advise sought above has not been given site visit 9/8/04 and prosecution file

updated.

(P) PACE issues resolved and evidence gathered. Added to prosecution file.

(L) March 05 - Evidence received by Legal to lay papers at court.

(L) Counsel instructed who is reviewing papers prior to laying inform

ation at Court.

(P) Site visit 5/8/05 with an Environment Agency surveyor and a soil scientist to gather evidence

pending a prosecution for failure to comply with an enforcem

ent notice.

(P) Following the above visit the soil scientist has failed to supply a statement and accordingly the

file is being reviewed for evidential quality.

(L) TEF no prosecution file can be located. NC to look to see what they have

(L) Site visited by Planning, papers being prepared for prosecution for non compliance.

(L) In Court 25 July for Plea.

(L) Pleaded not guilty, Pre trial review on 19 September 2008 to fix trial date.

(L) 2 day trial fixed for 11 and 12 February 2009.

NC2004/0

0606

L7/010

010831

Land at Poyle M

anor Farm

Caravans on Land

Prosecution breach of

enforcem

ent notice

(L) Meeting with TEF and NC. This m

atter is quite old. Enforcem

ent notice issued in 2004. NC

to do a site visit.

(L) as above

(L) Adjourned at Court until 25th July 2008 for plea.

(L) As above

2005/0040

9/ENF

T1/077

011746

13 Grasm

ere Avenue

Tyres sales and fitting

Prosecution for breach of

enforcem

ent notice

(P) file sent to legal

(L) Trial on 21st and 28th January 2009 at Bracknell.

Page 96

ENF/2005

/00396

T3/651

271 Langley Road

Slough

Failure to Comply with an

Enforcem

ent Notice

(L) (L) In Court 1

st August 2008 for plea, proof in absence or warrant of arrest.

(L) Matter proved in absence and warrant of arrest issued.

2007/0041

2/ENF

T3/653

52 Northern Road

Slough

Failure to Comply with a S215

Notice

(L) Hearing 22nd October 2008 at Bracknell

(L) Appeal dismissed by M

agistrates, aw

ard of costs £150.00.

(L) Legal considering default work.

2005/0052

2/ENF

T3/643

56 Hillside

Slough


Enforcem

ent Notice

(L) In Court 8

th August 2008 for plea.

(L) Adjourned until 29 August 2008 for pre trial review.

(L) Trial 17 Decem

ber 2008.

(L) Counsel instructed to attend Trial.

(L) Trial date set for 16th January 2009 at Maidenhead M

agistrates Court.

2008/0023

1/ENF

T3/660

38 Harrow Road

Slough


Enforcem

ent Notice

(L) First hearing on 10 October 2008 for plea

(L) Adjourned until 23rd January 2009

GLOSSARY OF ABREVIA

TIO

NS

PLANNIN

G

LEGAL

General

NC = Nigel Craske

RK = Roger Kirkham

EJ = Elizabeth Jenkins

CF = Ciara Feeney

HMO = House in M

ultiple Occupation

WM = W

esley M

cCarthy

AB = Amanda Ball KKC = Kuldip Channa

PA = Planning Application

BL = Bob Lee

RS = Reena Sharma

DP = Daw

n Pelle

SQ = Steven Quayle JB

= Jill Be

Page 97

Date of issue: 9th January 2009 MEETING PLANNING …€¦ · P/10864/002 Former Heathrow Cold...

Documents

Transcript of Date of issue: 9th January 2009 MEETING PLANNING …€¦ · P/10864/002 Former Heathrow Cold...