ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Windsor Panel
Date of Meeting: 28th November 2007
Parish/Ward: Clewer North
Ward
Change of Use
Agenda No. 1
Reference No:
04/01670/COU
Proposal:
Change of Use of Stableblock to form two self - contained 2
bedroom apartments. (Retrospective).
The Stableblock Edgeworth House Mill Lane Windsor Berkshire
SL4 5JE
Location:
Applicant:
Mr E Hamlet
Agent:
Maxwell Batley Solicitors
Date Received:
7th December 2004
Case Officer:
Graham Stallwood
Member Call-in: Not applicable
Recommendation:
REF
Date of Expiry: 1 February 2005
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement
Conservation Area
Listed Building
Flood Plain
Tree Preservation Order
Sustainable Development Implications:
See main report
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – H10, H11, CA2, LB2, P4, N6, F1, IMP1, R3
Structure Plan – DP4, EN6
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Extensive planning history relating to the whole of the site, incorporating Edgeworth
House. Planning history relevant to the stable block as follows:
03/84020 Change of use to two 2 bedroom apartments
Refused 10.05.04
03/84021 Listed Building Consent for internal alterations Granted
in connection with conversion to two 2
bedroom apartments
3.
02.07.04
The Highway Authority
No objections subject to conditions and informatives.
4.
English Heritage
Does not wish to make representations.
Page 1
…..continued
5.
Environment Agency
The information provided by the applicant demonstrated that the site was not at risk
from flooding and that in any event, a safe, dry access route from the site to an area
wholly outside of the area at risk from flooding can be provided. However, since that
time the level of flood risk has changed and, in accordance with PPS25 an up to date
Flood Risk Assessment is required.
6.
Environmental Protection Unit
No objections subject to conditions and informatives.
7.
Neighbour Notification Responses
None received.
REMARKS
1.
This application was considered by the Panel on 25th April 2005, when it was resolved
that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to grant planning permission,
subject to the prior completion of a unilateral undertaking to secure contributions
towards service facilities and infrastructure provision.
2.
Despite the repeated attempts of Officers to secure these contributions, an
undertaking to provide the required contributions has not been satisfactorily
completed. The application is therefore presented to the Panel again to allow it to
make a decision on the application in the absence of such an undertaking and
therefore the absence of contributions to provide associated improvements to
community infrastructure and services.
The Site and Surroundings
3.
The stable block is a two storey building located within the grounds of Edgeworth
House, a Grade II* Listed Building within the Clewer Village Conservation Area. The
stable block has in the past been used in connection with the youth hostel formerly
located in Edgeworth House.
4.
The conversion of the stable block formed part of a comprehensive scheme to
develop the site and was originally submitted along with several other applications for
planning permission and listed building consent, including for the conversion of
Edgeworth House into a single dwelling and the construction of a new detached
dwelling.
The Proposal
5.
Planning permission was originally sought for the conversion of the stable block into
two 2 bedroom flats under application 03/84020. Whilst listed building consent was
granted for the conversion works under application 03/84021, planning permission
was refused primarily on the basis that the applicant, at that point, had failed to
submit a comprehensive scheme for the whole site and the proposal therefore
represented a piecemeal form of development with inadequate car parking provision
and vehicular access.
6.
Despite this refusal of planning permission, works to convert the stables into two
separate flats continued, and the current application was submitted with others in an
attempt to regularise the situation. The works of conversion are complete and the
apartments are occupied now for consideration is retrospective with all works
complete.
Page 2
…..continued
Principal Planning Issues
7.
The main issues for consideration are:
i) Implications for flood risk;
ii) Impact upon the Conservation Area and Listed Building;
iii) Impact upon living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers;
iv) Highway safety and car parking provision; and
v) Developer contributions towards associated infrastructure.
Implications for flood risk
8.
When the Panel considered the application in April 2005 the site was located within
Flood Zone 2 (Low to Medium Risk) with an annual probability of flooding between
0.1 and 1.0%. Within such areas Local Plan Policy F1 states that development will
not be permitted for new residential development unless it can be demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the Council that the proposal would not in itself, or cumulatively in
conjunction with other development:
- Impede the flow of floodwater;
- Reduce the capacity of the flood plain to store flood water; or
- Increase the number of people or properties at risk from flooding.
9.
The Environment Agency originally raised an objection to the application on the basis
that the proposed development would increase the number of people at risk from
flooding. The applicant was advised, in line with the advice contained in Planning
Policy Guidance 25 Development and Flood Risk (PPG25), to carry out and submit a
flood risk assessment (FRA). Although a suitable FRA was not received by the
Agency, the applicant provided sufficient information to enable the initial objection to
be withdrawn.
10.
The information provided by the applicant demonstrated that the site was not at risk
from flooding and that in any event, a safe, dry access route from the site to an area
wholly outside of the area at risk from flooding could be provided. The Panel accepted
that the proposal complied with Local Plan Policy F1.
11.
Since the Panel’s consideration of the application in April 2005, PPG25 has been
revised and re-issued as Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk
(PPS25) and the latest information available to the Environment Agency has lead to
revised modelling of those sites which are liable to flooding. Decisions must, of
course, be made with respect to policies, guidance and other material considerations
relevant at the time of decision-making and it is therefore appropriate to revisit the
issue of flood risk in light of the publication of PPS25 and up to date flood risk
modelling.
12.
PPS25 seeks to steer new development towards sites with least risk of flooding for
the nature of vulnerability of that use: higher vulnerability uses should therefore be
located on sites with lowest probability of flooding. This is called the sequential test.
An exceptions test can then be applied to see if a scheme demonstrates wider
community sustainability benefits which outweighs flood risk. However PPS25
specifically excludes applications for changes of use of existing buildings, such as
proposed in this case, from these tests.
13.
The latest information on flood modelling indicates that much of the site now falls
within Flood Zone 3a (high risk) while the remainder remains at medium risk. As the
flood risk has changed materially and a vulnerable residential use is proposed, the
previous information demonstrating the occupants of the site were not at risk from
flooding and that in any event, a safe, dry access route from the site to an area wholly
outside of the area at risk from flooding could be provided needs to be revisited. At
the time of writing this report, a request to undertake further work in this respect has
Page 3
…..continued
not been undertaken by the applicant and no response to the Council’s
communications has been received.
14.
A FRA with up to date information demonstrating the occupants of the apartments will
not be at risk from flooding has not been provided. In the absence of the evidence to
the contrary from the applicant, the information on flood risk provided by the
Environment Agency should be taken at face value and the presumption is therefore
against granting planning permission as, on the basis of the latest information on
flood risk from the Environment Agency, the proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policy
F1 and the FRA requirements of PPS25 have not been met.
15.
However, it is appropriate to consider whether there are any other material
considerations in relation to flood risk. In terms of sustainability, the development
would see the provision of additional dwellings within the excluded settlement of
Maidenhead. Although by no means a central location, the development would
nonetheless be accessible to alternative transport choices and services provided
within the urban area. On its own, however, this is not considered sufficient
justification. More compelling in this case is the importance to be attached to the
preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of the conservation
area and the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The former use could not
recommence and if residential use could not in principle be accepted the building may
well then stand vacant as alternative uses would be extremely limited; this would
eventually clearly be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation
area and the setting of listed buildings.
16.
The use of the building as proposed would secure its future and consequently the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjoining
listed buildings. It is concluded therefore in this particular instance that retaining the
building in use, represents a wider benefit to the community that outweighs the
identified flood risk implications from the two additional households.
Impact upon the Conservation Area and Listed Building
17.
Listed Building Consent has already been granted for the physical conversion works
under application 03/84021 as the alterations to the building would protect its historic
and architectural interest. In terms of the impact upon the Conservation Area, Local
Plan Policy CA2 requires that all development within such areas either preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. As the majority of
the works are internal, there would be no significant impact upon the Conservation
Area. There has been no material change in circumstances in this respect since the
Panel accepted this in April 2005.
Impact upon living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers
18.
The stable block has been screened from the residential occupiers of Edgeworth
House by a 1.8m high close-boarded fence which provides a degree of privacy
between the proposed ground flood flat and Edgeworth House. There would be a
degree of mutual overlooking from the living room and bedroom window in the first
floor flat and from the first floor windows of Edgeworth House, however it is not
considered that this would be to the extent that refusal of the application on this basis
is justified. There has been no material change in circumstances in this respect since
the Panel accepted this in April 2005.
19.
No windows have been included to the northern elevation and there would be no
impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of The Stables to the north.
Page 4
…..continued
Highway safety and car parking provision
20.
Two car parking spaces have been provided for the flats within the grounds of
Edgeworth House. These spaces are shown within the ‘red edge’ of the application
site, and although the stable block is shown under separate ownership (Notice of the
application has been served on the owner as part of the application), as this
application is recommended for approval alongside application 04/01778 which
relates to the development of the whole site, this is acceptable. The car parking
spaces can be reasonably conditioned to remain in use for the two flats in the stable
block and have been provided. This level of parking is acceptable to the Highway
Authority.
Developer contributions towards associated infrastructure
21.
The proposal would result in additional residents and an associated additional
pressure on local infrastructure. Local Plan Policy IMP1 requires this to be mitigated
prior to a grant of planning permission and the associated Supplementary Planning
Guidance/Document (SPG/D) identifies how this can be provided through financial
contributions. When the Panel considered the application in April 2005 contributions
were required as follows:
- In lieu of on site public open space provision (£5,178);
- Education infrastructure improvements (£5,040);
- Community and youth facility capacity improvements (£800); and
- Library capacity improvements (£2,330).
22.
Since that time the Council’s SPG/D on this subject have developed considerably in
light of up to date evidence and Government Circular 05/05. Were the application to
be submitted now, there would be other areas where the Council would seek
contributions, but it would not be reasonable to apply these retrospectively. However,
where the latest evidence supports lowering any of the contributions referred to
above, it would be similarly unreasonable to continue requiring the higher contribution
where it is not supported by evidence.
23.
As such the contributions now required are:
- In lieu of on site public open space provision (£5,178);
- Education infrastructure improvements (£2,740.76);
- Community and youth facility capacity improvements (£800); and
- Library capacity improvements (£1,074).
As identified in paragraph 2, Officers have been unsuccessful in securing a
completed undertaking from the applicant to secure these contributions and
associated mitigation. In the absence of this undertaking and mitigation the proposal
would impact on local infrastructure unacceptably.
Conclusion
24.
Page 5
Whilst the Panel previously considered the proposal to be acceptable subject to the
satisfactory completion of a unilateral undertaking to secure infrastructure
improvements, the applicant has not completed such an undertaking and the flood
risk circumstances of the site have changed materially. It has not been demonstrated
by the applicant through a Flood Risk Assessment or other means that the occupiers
of the flats would not be at risk of flooding in the event of a flood as required by Local
Plan Policy F1 and PPS25, but in this particular case it is considered that the benefits
of securing the future of the heritage are sufficient to outweigh this increased harm,
particularly in the context of the Panel’s previous resolution in respect of this site.
…..continued
25.
Other than the impact on infrastructure has not been mitigated, the proposal is
considered acceptable in all other respects.
26.
In the event the application is refused, the Panel may wish to give further
consideration to the issue of enforcement action to cease the unauthorised use.
Should this be the case the Panel would need to consider the implications of such
action under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Recommendation:
Permission be refused for the following reason:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
Page 6
The proposal fails to make provision for off-site infrastructure and amenity
improvements directly related to the development in accordance with the Council's
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance/Document on Planning Obligations and
Developer Contributions. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with Policies
IMP1, T6 and R3 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan
(adopted July 1999, incorporating Alterations adopted June 2003) and Policy DP4 of
the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016.
…..continued