PLANNING COMMITTEE
12 March 2009
08/01170/FUL
ITEM 05
Autotest MOT Centre, 242A Ruxley Lane, West Ewell
Single storey extension to side and rear of existing building
RUXLEY
PLANS AVAILABLE HERE
23.3.2009
Notes
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE for the following reasons:
(1)
The proposed development would adversely affect the
amenities of adjoining residential properties due to the
noise and general disturbance from the increased
commercial activity facilitated by the extension to the
building. The proposals would thus be contrary to
Policies EMP2, EMP6 and DC1 of the Epsom and Ewell
District Wide Local Plan 2000.
(2)
The proposed extension due to its siting, bulk and
design would be unduly intrusive in the outlook of the
residents of adjoining residential properties contrary to
Policies EMP6 and DC1 of the Epsom and Ewell District
Wide Local Plan 2000.’
(3)
In the absence of a completed legal obligation under
section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended), the applicant has failed to comply with
Policy CS12 (Community infrastructure) of the Core
Strategy 2007 in relation to developer contributions to
community infrastructure.
Summary
The application premises is an industrial building used as an MOT testing centre and for car
repairs occupying a backland site to the rear of residential properties in Ruxley Lane, Jasmin
Close and Chessington Road.
There appears to be just sufficient space within the approved MOT station site to
accommodate the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and other outside space
requirements for the existing use.
The proposed rear extension to this MOT station would result in about an 84% increase in
the floor area of the premises which is likely to result in a material increase in commercial
activity on this restricted site.
The proposals would result in an undue increase in noise and general disturbance for the
residents of surrounding properties contrary to the requirements of policies EMP2 and EMP6
of the Local Plan and would harm their outlook. A previous application for a slightly largely
extension to the premises was refused for the same reasons.
At the date of this report the applicants had not agreed to pay developer contributions.
Councillor Stephen Pontin asked for a committee decision on this application.
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING COMMITTEE
12 March 2009
08/01170/FUL
ITEM 05
Consultations
The application was advertised by means of letters of notification to 27 neighbouring
properties. At the date of this report letters had been received from 9 residents objecting to
the proposals on the following grounds:
Noise, revving of engines, general disturbance, fumes, lack of parking and park on grass on
site, traffic hazards and danger from extra traffic, loss of privacy, visual intrusion of buildings,
building overwhelming, out of keeping, site is subject to flooding, should be refused for same
reasons as before, loss of outlook, loss of light, adverse affect on roots of trees, no need for
more MOT stations, business day has been extended, nuisance of overspill parking, should
not be allowed to encroach on adjoining land acquired from property on Chessington Road,
increase in size of building of industrial proportions, disturbance from existing compressor.
Highways – recommend conditions on any permission.
Thames Water – state that there are public sewers crossing the site, and no building works
will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water’s approval
Site and surroundings
The application premises is an industrial building used as an MOT testing centre and for car
repairs occupying a site to the rear of residential properties in Ruxley Lane, Jasmin Close
and Chessington Road. Access to this backland site is via the site of the garage and petrol
filling station (with small sales kiosk) at 242 Ruxley Lane, of which it originally formed part.
The application site is shown to include an L shaped area of land previously part of the
residential curtilage of 484 Chessington Road and not forming part of the permitted site for
the MOT station use. When the case officer visited the site parking at the front of the testing
centre was partly encroaching on the L shaped area.
Relevant Planning History
87/0137/0075 Conversion of existing workshop and sales building to retail use combined
with forecourt control store and office/wc with new linked canopy; installation
of fully enclosed conveyor automatic wash bay to replace workshop parking
area – Refused July 1987 the objections relating purely to the car wash
building. Subsequent appeal allowed February 1989. The car wash building
would have measured 19 x 8.4 x 4 metres high flat roof.
89/1402/0800 Erection of detached industrial building at rear to provide MOT testing centre –
permitted March 1990 subject to the following condition:
(7) The premises shall be used for MOT testing centre only, and no other
purpose including any other purpose in Use Class B2 of the Schedule ot the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
93/00484
Relaxation of condition (7) of planning permission no. 89/1402/0800 to allow
repairs associated with M.O.T. testing. Permitted subject to following
conditions:
(1) This permission shall be for a limited period only, expiring on 30/01/95
when the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued (and the land reinstated
to its former condition). Reason: To ensure that the circumstances are
reviewed at the end of the period permitted.
(2) The repairs hereby permitted shall only be those associated with M.O.T.
testing as set out in the applicant’s letter to the Council dated 23/6/93.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the
enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.
Page 2 of 4
PLANNING COMMITTEE
12 March 2009
08/01170/FUL
ITEM 05
94/00281/FUL Single storey side extension to existing building to provide customer reception,
waiting and office space. Provision of staff car parking to the rear of the
building. Refused for the following reasons:
The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of adjoining
residential properties due to the noise and general disturbance from the
increased commercial activity facilitated by the extension to the building and
from the use of the new paved areas for parking. The proposals would thus
be contrary to Policies EMP2, EMP6 and DC1 of the Epsom and Ewell District
Wide Local Plan 2000.
07/01208/FUL Single storey extension to rear. Refused May 2008 for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of
adjoining residential properties due to the noise and general disturbance from
the increased commercial activity facilitated by the extension to the building.
The proposals would thus be contrary to Policies EMP2, EMP6 and DC1 of
the Epsom and Ewell District Wide Local Plan 2000.
(2) The proposed extension due to its siting, bulk and design would be unduly
intrusive in the outlook of the residents of adjoining residential properties
contrary to Policies EMP6 and DC1 of the Epsom and Ewell District Wide
Local Plan 2000.
The Proposal
The application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal of an earlier application with the
proposed building modified to have a lower profile and slightly reduced in size.
The application proposes the erection of an extension to the existing building to the rear and
side to accommodate extra workshop area for the business. It would extend the existing
building to the rear by 10.4 m to within about 4m of the rear boundary of houses in Jasmin
Road in a form that would match the shape of the existing and in materials to match but with
a roof ridge 0.55 m lower This rear extension would have an element 4.7 m wide to the side
coming to within about 9.8 m of the rear boundary of the short rear gardens of houses in
Orchard Close and would have a roof slope that would be a downward continuation of the
roof of the remainder of the proposed rear extension with an eaves height of 3.6 m.
The extension would be largely built on the rear part of the L of the former residential
curtilage of No.484 Chessington Road.
The drawings indicate that the extra accommodation would provide a workshop with 5 extra
bays with hydraulic lifts.
Planning Policy
Epsom and Ewell District Wide Local Plan 2000.
Policy BE1
General Policy on the Built Environment
Policy DC1
General Policy
Policy HSG13
Retention of housing land and buildings
Policy EMP1
General policy for employment
Policy EMP2
Location of employment development
Policy EMP6
Employment areas in rest of borough
Core Strategy 2007
Policy CS5
Policy CS6
Policy CS12
Policy CS11
Built Environment
Sustainability
Developer contributions
Employment provision
Page 3 of 4
PLANNING COMMITTEE
12 March 2009
Surrey Structure Plan
Policy SE2
Policy SE4
08/01170/FUL
ITEM 05
Renewable energy and energy conservation
Quality of Design
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal for the previous application but
the extension now proposed is very similar in size and bulk to the previously proposed
extension and the accommodation to be provided would be much the same. The extension
now proposed would be less wide by 1.55 m and would have a ridge 0.55 m lower
The site is surrounded by residential properties and houses in Orchard Close have rear
gardens only 3.5 to 8 m deep.
There appears to be just sufficient space within the approved MOT station site to
accommodate the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles and other outside space
requirements for that existing use.
Some cars at present are parked at the side of the building. The entrance to the new
workshop area is down at the side of the existing building and would reduce this existing
area of parking.
The proposals would result in about an 84% increase in the floor area of the premises which
is likely to result in a material increase in commercial activity on this restricted site.
It is judged that the proposals would result in an undue increase in noise and general
disturbance for the residents of surrounding properties contrary to the requirements of
policies EMP2 and EMP6 of the Local Plan.
The extension would result in this industrial building having elevations 16 m at the closest to
the main rear elevation of No. 11 Orchard Close and 18 m to the rear of houses in Jasmin
Road. The extended building due to its bulk and design this close to residential properties
would be obtrusive in their outlook.
The increase in traffic due to the increase in the size of the premises is unlikely to be
significant taking in to account the current generation by the MOT station and the frontage
petrol filling station and shop. There is an extant permission won on appeal to redevelop the
petrol filling forecourt and to extend the kiosk.
Renewable energy
No details have been submitted with the application to show how the proposals would
provide at least 10% of the energy requirements of the new workshop from renewable
resources on site, as required under Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.
The orientation of the roof of the proposed extension and its position does not make it easy
to use solar panels to provide the 10% but details are awaited from the agent on whether
there is another feasible way to provide it. Full details of proposed generation of at least 10%
energy from renewable resources could be required by condition if permission was granted.
Infrastructure contributions
Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy requires developer contributions for community
infrastructure for new commercial development based on the number of additional workers
calculated using figures for the average floorspace per worker, taking into account the
viability of the development. To accord with the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD) -Developer Contributions, the contributions would be £6665 for transport,
£840 for open space and £2500 for environmental improvements plus a management fee of
£500.
Details are awaited from the agent on whether his client is prepared to make the necessary
contributions.
Obviously no necessary unilateral obligation under Section 106 of the Planning Act to secure
any developer contributions has been received.
Contact: Jacy Yates
Page 4 of 4