ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Maidenhead Panel
Date of Meeting:
11 April 2007
Reference No.:
Proposal:
06/02089/REM
Lighting Masterplan details submitted in accordance with
condition 5 of the reserved matters approval dated 24 November
2006
Former Grassland Research Institute, Honey Lane, Hurley,
Maidenhead
Kenmore Capital (Hurley) Limited
DP9
5th March 2007
Peter Carey
Defer and delegate authority to discharge condition
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
Date Received:
Case Officer:
Recommendation:
Planning Context:
Parish/Ward:
Parish Council
Hurley Agenda No. 1
Green Belt, Setting of Thames, Area of Special Landscape Character
site also adjoins Conservation Area
Sustainable Development Implications: Measures to reduce unwanted illumination would
also assist energy conservation and reduce CO2
emissions
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan –
GB1, GB2, DG1, CA2
Structure Plan –DP3, DP6, DP8, EN1, EN4
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
425059
Erection of office building new vehicular access and access
road following demolition of existing admin/laboratory
outbuildings and research buildings (Outline) Appeal Allowed
30.03.1993
429038
Demolition of existing buildings off Henley Road and
erection of B1 buildings (8346sqms) with associated
access car parking and landscaping (Outline)
98/33091
PVWRCM
A12.01.1996
Relaxation of condition 2 of permission 429038 (to extend
timescale by 3 years for submitting reserved matters). A18.11.1998
1
99/34881
Reserved matters submission pursuant to outline consent
429038 for erection of a 3-storey building for Class B1 use with
covered link to existing building B, associated car parking including
extension to existing Building K and gatehouse
A02.02.2001
01/36991
Relaxation of condition 1 of consent 98/33091 to extend timescale
for submission of reserved matters
A28.09.2001
04/41327
Relaxation of Condition 1 of planning permission 01/36991 to
extend timescale for submission of reserved matters by 3 years.
A16.03.2004
04/41469/OUT Outline application for the erection of 83 dwellings, retention of
2 dwellings and community building with new access to Henley
Road, parking, public open space and landscaping following
demolition of existing.
Appeal withdrawn 19.06.2006
05/00843/OUT Outline application for the erection of 67 dwellings, new access
on to Henley Road, parking public open space and landscaping
following demolition of existing buildings.
Appeal withdrawn 19.06.2006
06/02089/REM Reserved matters application for siting, design, external appearance
and landscaping for a new office building pursuant to outline consent
429038 (as varied by consent 04/41327 dated 16 March 2004)
A24.11.2006
3.
The Highway Authority (Principal Street Lighting Engineer)
No objections to the design submitted; developers have done everything within their
power to reduce the light spill in terms of the residential impact. There will be sky
glow caused by light reflected off the car park surfaces, but with the sensible
switching times suggested in the lighting strategy report this will be kept to a
minimum.
This seems to be a good solution considering the need for safety and the operational
requirements of the building.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
50 local addresses advised of the submitted details. Any responses received will be
reported as Late Observations. Concerns raised on the Reserved Matters application
itself included light pollution, with suggestions that internal lighting should be switched
off after normal working hours and external lighting kept to a low level.
5.
Parish Council
To be reported. Comments on the Reserved Matters application had sought a
condition requiring building lights to be switched off between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. to
avoid light pollution.
PVWRCM
2
REMARKS
The site
1.
This proposal relates to the main part of the office and laboratory site of the former
Institute for Grasslands and Environmental Research situated on the south side of
Henley Road, Hurley for which there is an extant full planning permission for office
development following approval of the reserved matters application last November.
The site occupies rising ground on the north side of Prospect Hill, with an average
gradient of about 1 in 15. Access to the site will be from Honey Lane, which will have
a new junction with the Henley Road west of the existing junction.
2.
The approved proposal is to demolish all buildings on the site and construct a single
8346 sq. m. office building. Parking for 239 cars (including 12 disabled spaces), 12
motorcycles and 54 bicycles will be to the south and east sides of the site. The
building is of a contemporary symmetrical design, the main axis being aligned EastWest, with southward projecting wings at each end and a central entrance lobby on
the south elevation. The south, east and west elevations will be mainly of brick and
glass, with aluminium louvres to the plant wings in the south east and south west
corners, and the north elevation mainly of glass. There will be aluminium brise soleil
over the central glass front entrance section of the south facing elevation and a colour
coated steel overhang along the top of the north elevation. There will be a 20m wide
landscaped strip planted with a mixture of trees and shrubs to screen the development
from the open land to the south.
Proposal
3.
In approving the Reserved Matters, Members asked that the Lighting Details required
by condition 5 be reported to Panel. A detailed Lighting Strategy Report has been
submitted which specifies the types of lighting to be used in and outside the building,
and the measures to minimise its impact on the character of the are and the amenities
of neighbouring occupiers.
Planning Issues
4.
These issues are considered to be the acceptability of the scheme in terms of any
impact on the character of the countryside, including impact on the character and
appearance of the Setting of The Thames, the Area of Special Landscape Importance
and Hurley Village Conservation Area, and on the amenities of occupiers of
neighbouring properties.
5.
The lighting scheme follows the Lighting Strategy Report submitted with the Reserved
Matters application. Internal lighting would be in the form of directional internal down
lighting using 600 cut off angle diffusers to prevent viewing of lamp sources from
outside the 600 viewing angle and hence reduce direct illumination of windows. The
report demonstrates that these would ensure that light spillage outside the site would
be kept to a minimum. A passive infra red presence detector system would ensure
lights are only switched on in occupied parts of the building, so only necessary
lighting would be on at any time and there would be none when the building was
empty. Although the building would have a greater amount of glazing facing the
residential properties to the north than the previous buildings on the site, the light
spillage would be less than that through the smaller windows of the old buildings.
The landscaping on the northern part of the site is an important factor in reducing
direct visibility of the building from houses in Old Honey Lane and Henley Road and
the report concludes that the light spill from the new buildings would be no greater
PVWRCM
3
than from the previous buildings when occupied and quite possibly would be an
improvement.
6.
External lighting for the car park and pathways will be in the form of building- and
pole-mounted flat glass luminaires which have zero upward light. The scheme is
designed to provide a level of 15-20 lux in these areas for the security of workers and
visitors, with light spill at the site boundary 0-1 lux at all times (moonlight typically
measures 2 lux). Poles would be no more than 3m high where they are not shielded
from residential properties by the building and 5m where they are shielded by the
building and their light would have no impact on any residential property; and upward
glare from reflected from the car park surface would be kept at a low level. 1m high
directional lighting bollards will illuminate the access from Honey Lane, with the light
directed along the path away from the village. Bollards were not considered suitable
for the car parks for three reasons: parked cars could mask the light creating dark
areas which would be a safety and security risk; there would be increased risk of
damage to bollards, especially in areas with no kerbs; and to achieve a suitable level
of illumination an excessive number of bollards would be required.
7.
The report envisages that the external lighting would be zone-controlled, so that
outside hours to be specified it was switched off but would be switched on for a
limited period in any zone by a car or person presence detection switch. Details of the
zones and the duration of illumination would need to be agreed by the Local Planning
Authority. It is suggested that these would apply after 8 p.m. each evening.
8.
Local Plan Policy N1 seeks to protect the special qualities of the Area of Special
Landscape Importance, and Policy N2 seeks to conserve and enhance the Setting of
the Thames. Given the minimal impact of the lighting outside the site, it is considered
that in view of the very low level of light spillage outside the site, the proposed lighting
scheme would respect the unlit character of the surrounding area, including Hurley
village itself, and would not have any materially detrimental impact on the character of
these policy areas or on the houses in Old Honey Lane and along the Henley Road.
Conclusion
9.
As the Council’s Principal Lighting Engineer reports, the developers have done
everything within their power to reduce the light spill and produced a good solution
given the need for safety and the operational requirements of the building. It is
therefore concluded that, subject to approval of further details relating to the
operation of presence detection switches outside the working day, the proposal would
not have a detrimental environmental impact or cause harm to residential amenities in
the locality. It therefore complies with relevant development plan policies and is in
principle recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION
That the details submitted in accordance with Condition 5 of the reserved matters
approval reference 06/02089 be approved in principle, and that authority to discharge
the condition formally be delegated to the Head of Planning following receipt of
details of the zones to be covered by presence detection switches for the period
between 20:00 and 06:00 each night, and the illumination periods for each zone
following activation of these switches.
PVWRCM
4
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward:
Parish Council
06/02251/FULL
Full
Cookham Agenda No.2
Location:
Conversion and alterations of existing barns to form five
dwellings together with new outbuildings for garaging and
ancillary storage following demolition of various outbuildings
and extensions and relocation of an agricultural barn. Works
to include repositioning of access onto Sutton Road, new
roadway and flood defence bund
White Place Farm Sutton Road Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9RA
Applicant:
Cemex U K Ltd
Agent:
Cluttons LLP
Date Received:
29th September 2006
Case Officer:
Victoria Gibson
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt
Floodplain
Setting of the Thames
Tree Preservation Order
Listed Buildings
Sustainable Development Implications:
Reuse of derelict buildings
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, GB8, F1, N2, N6, N10, ARCH4, DG1, LB2, LB3, R3, R4,
R5, H10 T5, P4, IMP1.
Structure Plan – DP3, EN4, EN6, DP4
Also of relevance are the following Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and Planning
Policy Statements (PPS), which contain government advice on specific issues
PPG2 – Green Belts
PPG15 – Historic Environment
PPS 25 – Flooding
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
No. Reference No.
1
1035/73
PVWRCM
2
40/790
3
412155
4
97/31587
Description
Application for Recreation
Centre
Change of use of land and
buildings to equestrian
centre
Erection of agricultural
buildings
Telecommunications
Development
5
Decision
Refused
Date
29/3/74
Refused
23/6/75
Approved
8/1/81
Refused
18/9/97
3.
5
98/32670
6
98/33151
7
01/36956/TLDT
8
02/38620/FULL
9
02/39229
Erection of agricultural
building
Demolition of 2 barns –
Listed Building Consent
Telecommunication
Development
Telecommunications
Development
Telecommunications
Development
Approved
9/2/99
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
“
The Highway Authority
No objection subject to conditions
4.
The Environment Agency
Raises an objection – see paragraphs 80 – 96 of report
5.
Berkshire Archaeology
No objection subject to conditions
6.
Tree Officer
No objection subject to conditions
7.
Conservation Officer
No objections subject to conditions
8.
Landscape Officer
No objection subject to conditions
9.
Babtie (Ecology)
Comments awaited
10.
Natural England
Comments awaited
11.
Neighbour Notification Responses
1 letter received raising the following comments
-
12.
Re-positioning of access road to White Place Farm would hinder access to cess
tanks that form the drainage system for Gate House Cottages.
Would request that the new access be implemented before commence of the
works to White Place Farm.
Would request that the existing access that runs through Gate House Cottages be
closed to prevent any further damage being caused to the archway.
River Thames Society
Raises the following objections
-
PVWRCM
the introduction of five new dwellings in this location is contrary to F1 and PPG25
as it would increase people and property at risk of flooding.
6
-
The proposed bund will not prevent groundwater flooding and the use of pumps is
not sustainable flood protection and is insufficient to justify new dwellings.
A further letter of objection has been received from this society raising new objections
regarding:
- climate change
- ground water flooding
A copy of this second letter of objection was forwarded to the Environment Agency
who have responded and advise these concerns are resolvable by condition – see
paragraph 95.
13.
The Cookham Society
Supports this application.
14.
Parish Council
No objection subject to conditions.
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
1.
White Place Farm is a working farm accessed from the A4094 Sutton Road and is
located approximately 1km north of Maidenhead and 1km south of the village of
Cookham. A long track road leads to the main cluster of buildings located in the
centre of the site.
2.
At the western end of this access road fronting Sutton Road lies a late 19 Century
Lodge with an arch, which comprises two residential properties, known as Gate
House Cottages. The site has two access points one underneath the arch and the
other access point 40 metres to the south.
3.
The site comprises and is surrounded by agricultural land with the River Thames lying
to the east.
4.
The application site contains a large complex of buildings many of which are listed
and formed part of the original Astor Home Farm. To the north of the site lies the
main Farm House, Rose Cottage and West Dean, all of which are listed and used for
residential purposes. On the opposite side of the track access road to the south of the
site is the cluster of agricultural buildings which are relevant to this application. Many
of these buildings are listed but have unfortunately fallen into disrepair as modern
agricultural buildings have been erected and favoured by the farm instead.
5.
Five of these barns form the main part of this application and a brief description of
each of them is as follows:
Barn One
6.
This is an attractive timber framed barn, which partly dates back to the 16th century, it
has been unsympathetically extended and extensively modified. The roof is covered
in red clay plain tiles with the ridge capped with half round ridge tiles, the building
includes a number of openings. This barn is a Grade II Listed Building.
Barn Two
7.
PVWRCM
This barn is attached to barn one and is a similarly attractive timber framed building
dating from the 16th Century, This barn has been subject to a number of additions
7
which appear incongruous to the original building. This barn is a Grade II Listed
Building.
Barn Three
8.
Barn 3 is a large cowshed of 20 century construction with brick perimeter walls with
boarded horizontal sliding shutters above to low eaves level. The building is listed
Grade II and the listing description describes this buildings as being “unique to
Berkshire”.
Barn Four
9.
Barn 4 is a single storey former milking parlour of early 20th century construction. It is
built from red clay brick in English bond and double gabled at the east and western
ends. The building is attractive and whilst not listed in its own right it is most definitely
worthy of retention.
Barn Five
10.
Barn 5 is a part single and part two-storey dairy in the Arts and Craft style dating from
around 1920. It is constructed of the same red brick as the cowshed. The building is
very attractive and worthy of retention even though it is not specifically listed in its
own right.
Other relevant buildings
11.
To the south of barns 1 and 2 and to the west of barn 3 are two very dilapidated 20
century buildings. There is also a modern open sided portal framed agricultural
building adjacent to these buildings which is separate from the remainder of the
operational farm buildings. These are referred to on the submitted plans building 15,
16 and 17. Barns 16 and 17 are proposed to be demolished.
12.
Further south lies the remains of a part demolished outbuilding and cowshed which
are also in an urgent state of repair. Both these buildings are proposed to be
demolished.
13.
To the west of Barn 1 is an existing stable block, building 9, and 2 large portal framed
barns, buildings 13 and 14. To the south of this building lies building 8, know as the
Old Pump House, a residential property. To the west of the pump house is a cluster
of outbuildings all proposed to be demolished.
The Proposal
14.
This application seeks planning permission for the conversion of barns 1 –5 to form 5
dwellings together with associated works. The associated works comprises of the
following;
-
demolition of unsightly and dilapidated buildings
repositioning of existing site access
erection of new open-sided cartsheds to provide parking and the conversion of
existing buildings to form 7 spaces
creation of replacement length of access road
re-positioning of existing portal-framed agricultural building
creation of flood protection measures and
detailed landscaping proposals
Conversion Works
Barn 1
PVWRCM
8
15.
Permission is sought to convert this barn into a four bedroom dwelling. The proposals
do not involve the insertion of any new external openings save for three small roof
lights. The garden space for the property will comprise an existing grassed area to the
north of the building and part of an area of existing hard standing both of which will be
enclosed by a mixed species hedge.
16.
Three car parking spaces and a garden store will be accommodated in an existing
timber building which is located immediately to the west.
Barn 2
17.
It is proposed to convert barn 2 to a four bedroom dwelling. The proposals involve the
demolition of a large two storey concrete extension and metal roof on the south
elevation and the smaller extension on the south elevation. Glazed and timber doors
are to be inserted in place of the existing cart door with four small windows and two
roof lights to allow adequate sunlight and daylight.
18.
A new open sided pitched roofed cart shed structure would provide car parking with
the garden area being sited to the rear and enclosed by a mixed species hedge.
Barn 3
19.
The Conservation Officer considers this building to be the most important on site and
there have been extensive discussions regarding its conversion. It is proposed to
convert this barn into one 6 bedroom dwelling to retain the light and airy open
character of the interior of the building.
20.
Car parking will be provided in a new open-sided cart shed immediately to the north
of the building together with a new cart shed for garden storage to the south.
Barn 4
21.
It is proposed to convert barn 4 to a four bedroom dwelling. No additional openings
are required in the walls. 4 small roof lights would be installed in the roof slope.
22.
A covered link to barn 5 is to be demolished and replaced by an open sided timber
clad car port with pitched roof at the opposite end of the building. Amenity space is to
be provided to the rear of the property and will be demarcated by new hedging.
Barn 5
23.
Barn 5 is proposed to be converted to a 4/5 bedroom dwelling. New windows will need
to be inserted at ground floor level and in the roof slope. As elsewhere car parking will
be provided by means of a new open sided cart shed to be sited on the site of the
existing building proposed to be demolished.
Demolition works
24.
It is proposed to demolish a total of 1095.5 m2 of buildings and structures, this
comprises of the demolition of the modern extensions to the listed buildings, several
outbuildings and main buildings 12, 16, 17, and 18, which are modern barns and
stables of no historic or architectural importance.
Repositioning of site access
25.
PVWRCM
It is proposed that the existing access under the arch be retained for use by residents
of Gatehouse Cottages. However, it is proposed to close off the other access to the
south and create a new access to the north of the gatehouse to serve both the
proposed development and White Place Farm.
9
Erection of new open cartshed/garden stores
26.
4 cart sheds are to be erected to provide parking facilities and garden stores. These
structures would be a maximum of five metres high with pitch roofs and constructed
of timber boarding. The car sheds to serve barn 4 and 5 are small scale. The
cartsheds and garden store to serve barns 2 and 3 are to be sited well within the site
and are larger in scale. The total area of new build equates to 360 square metres.
Creation of a new length of access road
27.
In order to separate traffic associated with the development from the working farm it
is proposed to construct a new length of access road off of the main access to the
site. This access will run to the south of the existing agricultural buildings.
Repositioning of existing portal-framed agricultural building.
28.
This building is currently underused due to its siting away from the other modern
buildings. It is proposed to resite the building adjacent to building 13 which would
result in all of the modern agricultural buildings being sited together. This separates
the residential part of the scheme from the agricultural buildings.
New Flood Protection Measures
29.
A flood risk assessment was submitted with the application and proposes to construct
a low earth bund and to raise part of the roadway to prevent the site from flooding.
Floodplain compensation will be provided on the surrounding land and a conveyance
system will allow flood water to continue to flow through the raised road.
Landscaping Proposals
30.
The main elements of the scheme are as follows:
-
-
31.
Infill landscaping where the southernmost access to be closed off;
Removal of existing hedge along Sutton Road to the north of the gatehouse
Cottages and replacement with a new native hedgerow;
The positioning of new 1.2 m high parkland railings to match existing and the
planting of lime trees along the edge of the new access road where it joins the
Sutton Road;
Seeding of the 600mm bund and planting of a hedgerow on top along the western
edge of the new internal access road and southern boundary of the site. This is to
be supplemented by mixed deciduous tree planting;
Proposed hedgerow planting supplemented by mixed deciduous tree planting
along the northern edge of the application; and
Thicket planting around the existing and relocated farm buildings.
Principal Planning Issues
The main issues to be considered in this case are set out below:i.
ii.
iii.
iv
PVWRCM
The impact of the proposal on the listed buildings and their setting (EN4,LB2,
LB3).
Whether the proposals represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt
and if so whether the applicant has demonstrated the “very special
circumstances” which indicate a determination other than in accordance with the
development plan (DP3, GB1, GB8).
Whether the proposals are acceptable in terms of their impact on the openness of
the Green Belt and the character of the Countryside (GB2).
Housing Restraint (CS20).
10
v.
vi.
Whether the proposals are acceptable in terms of floodplain policy (EN6, F1).
The impact of the proposal on the highway network, the acceptability of the
proposed access, and the appropriateness of proposed level of on site
parking(T5, P4).
vii. The impact of the proposals on the amenities of nearby occupiers.
viii The impact of the proposals on trees and other landscape features (N5,N6).
ix Nature Conservation Matters (N10).
x Infrastructure Contributions (DP4, IMP1, R3, R4, R5).
xi Sustainability Issues (DP1).
32.
These issues are examined in turn below
(i)
The impact of the proposal on the listed buildings and their setting.
33.
PPG15 provides a statement of the Government’s policies for the protection of historic
buildings. Para 1.3 confirms the government’s commitment to sustainable
development and makes clear that, “this commitment has particular relevance to the
preservation of the historic environment, which by its nature, is irreplaceable.” PPG15
then goes on to confirm that there will be a general presumption in favour of the
preservation of listed buildings.
34.
With specific regard to the change of use of Listed Buildings para 2.18 advises “new
uses may often be key to a buildings or areas preservation and control over landuse,
density, plot ratio, daylighting and other planning matters should be exercised
sympathetically where this would enable a historic building or area to be given a new
lease of life.”
35.
The broad thrust of this government of advice regarding listed buildings is supported
by Structure Plan Policy EN4 and Local Plan policies LB2 and LB3. Policy LB3 and its
supporting text in relation to farm buildings requires the applicant to demonstrate why
a change of use is necessary, how residential use is acceptable in terms of
preserving the special characteristics of the buildings and their setting, and how the
conversion will provide for the future of all listed buildings in the complex.
36.
The buildings are operating predominantly as temporary livery spaces or are currently
vacant, with no functional requirement within the modern farm complex. As such the
buildings have fallen in to a state of disrepair. The applicant puts forward the case
that a new use is required to secure the long term conservation of the buildings as
they no longer provide a functional use within the farm since modern purpose built
buildings serve the agricultural use much more efficiently. The residential conversion
is justified further by the design of the scheme allowing the rationalisation of the more
modern farm buildings, which in turn clears the area around the historic buildings and
improves their setting.
37.
The explanation that has been provided as to how the remaining listed buildings on
the overall complex, Rose Cottage and the Dovecot will have their future secured by
the submitted proposals is simply that they remain as part of the farm complex in their
present use. The Dovecot is included in the building survey, but there are no
proposals for the building. It is unfortunate that there is no specific provision within the
scheme for these listed buildings to be surveyed and any structural defects made
good. However, the proposals do not appear to prejudice the future of the buildings.
Rose Cottage is a separate residential unit, and the dovecote will always only be an
ancillary building and it is closest to and presently used by the farmhouse.
38.
As to the justification for residential use, whilst commercial uses are generally
preferable in attempting to retain the open space character of the building interiors,
the schemes for conversion that have been developed in this instance, with only one
residential unit in each of the principal listed buildings, and utilising existing openings,
are such that the residential conversion is shown to be achievable whilst respecting
the significant features of the barns.
PVWRCM
11
39.
The scheme also provides for considerable improvements to the settings of the listed
buildings and goes some way to re-establishing the appearance of the Astor Home
Farm. The proposed change of use of the barns to residential purposes complies with
PPG15 and LB3 and provides some real benefits in preserving these Listed Buildings
and securing their long-term future.
40.
The details of any proposed conversions need also need to be considered against the
provisions of policy LB2 and more general advice such as PPG 15 in respect of
alterations to listed buildings. The application is accompanied by surveys of the
existing buildings, including frame surveys of the historic barns and a typical detail for
the new infill panels and the alteration of each barn has been assessed below:
Barns 1 and 2
41.
These are historic timber framed barns that appear to have been altered at the time
of the early 20th century alterations to the farm complex to give them a 'black and
white ' appearance. The barns now have concrete infill panels to the timber frame that
has replaced either brick infill or weatherboarding, and it appears that intermediate
frame members have either been removed or simply incorporated into the panels.
This form of infill panel is not sympathetic to the preservation of the timber frame and
the application therefore includes proposals for the replacement of this material with a
lighter structure finished with a lime render.
42.
The barns are two separate constructions that have been linked and it is proposed to
convert each into a separate unit with little alteration to the external openings, other
than the addition of some conservation style rooflights, and retaining frame elements
exposed internally. Barn 1 has an inserted floor and this arrangement is retained in
the conversion, together with the small bothy area at the western end. Barn 2 is larger
with a considerable open volume and a large area of this is retained in the
conversion. The details of the conversion and the repair of the timber frame need to
be controlled by condition, but the principles shown appear to be acceptable.
Barn 3 The Cow House
43.
This barn is also listed and is described in the list description as being 'unique in
Berkshire'. It is a covered cow house with three ranges of tiled roof with a central
octagonal clerestory and pyramidal copper roof. The building contains a range of
fittings such as drinking troughs and railings and a remnant of an overhead monorail
feeding system. The external walls of the building are a brick base with timber
screens and shutters on the upper levels.
44.
As part of the pre application discussions the significance of this building has been
investigated, and it has been established that it contains some fittings from an
American agricultural building system that was either imported or more likely
manufactured in this country to the original design. The fittings appear to have been
used quite widely in this country and whilst the building form is likely to be unique, it
does not appear that the internal elements are. On the basis of this research the
application now proposes the conversion of this building, retaining the structure of the
internal space but removing the fittings. The mitigation offered for the removal of the
internal fittings is a researched and illustrated building record, which can be deposited
in either a local or national building record.
45.
The proposed conversion of this building shows an unconventional layout with
bedroom and bathroom 'pods' set into each corner with glazed walls internally, with
the character of the former open cattle space retained in an undivided central living
space. The external appearance of the building is retained similar to the existing with
windows inserted between areas of boarding. Whilst the design is unconventional, it
is considered that it would, if implemented, retain the character of this building, and
PVWRCM
12
therefore again subject to conditions to control the details the conversion would
preserve the special architectural and historic character of the listed building.
The Milking Shed (Barn 4)
46.
This building is not individually listed but apparently dates from about 1920. This is a
red brick building with a tiled roof, with regularly spaced windows down each side,
door openings and loft doors in the end gables. Internally this is a simple open space
with loft space in each roof. The residential conversion keeps the external form of the
building largely unaltered except for the addition of some small rooflights to light the
accommodation in the roof space.
The Dairy (Barn 5)
47.
This building is quite decorative and has quite a domestic appearance. The proposals
for this building are achieved with little alteration of the external appearance other
than the addition of 4 roof lights. This therefore seems to be an acceptable way of
converting the building whilst retaining the farmyard character. The interior of this
building retains some evidence of the former dairy use including a tiled cool room.
This is identified to be retained in the conversion.
New Outbuildings
48.
The scheme involves the provision of some new traditional cartshed type buildings to
provide garage and storage facilities for each unit, and an existing stable/loose box
range is also retained for similar functions for Barn 1 and the Pumphouse. The form
of the new outbuildings is of traditional farm buildings and the siting relates to the
farm layout appropriately whilst also creating enclosed spaces between the converted
buildings.
Setting including new access and lodges
49.
The scheme goes some way to recreating the appearance of a model farm yard, with
the functional farm buildings set away from the riverside of the site. With appropriate
hard and soft landscaping to reflect the rural setting the proposal would improve and
contribute to reinstating the setting of the listed buildings allowing them to be viewed
more coherently as a group.
50.
The scheme also involves the formation of a new access to the road to the north of
the existing lodges. The lodges appear to be part of the same period of construction
as the farm buildings and are important buildings that may be considered to be
curtilage listed. The new access would be beneficial to the setting of the lodges by
providing an appropriately landscaped treatment to link into the existing drive and by
the reinstatement of the southern entrance hedge line.
51.
Overall the scheme is considered to preserve the special architectural and historic
character of the group of farm buildings and to be in accordance with Policy LB2 of the
Local Plan and the advice contained in PPG15.
(ii). Whether the proposals represent inappropriate development in the Green
Belt and if so whether the applicant has demonstrated the “very special
circumstances” which indicate a determination other than in accordance
with the development plan?
52.
PVWRCM
PPG2 advises that the reuse of buildings within the Green belt should not prejudice
the openness of the green belt since the buildings are already there and therefore
subject to certain criteria the reuse of buildings within the Green Belt is not
inappropriate development.
13
53.
Structure Plan Policy DP3 and Local Plan Policy GB1, reflecting the guidance in
PPG2 – Green Belts, set out the forms of development that are appropriate in the
Green Belt. Policy GB1 (B) confirms that the change of use of a building can be
considered appropriate development provided that it complies with policy GB8 of the
Local Plan.
54.
Policy GB8 permits the change of use of buildings subject to certain criteria. For the
purposes of this application these criteria can be summarised as follows:
i)
ii)
ii)
iv)
the proposed development, associated works and external activities would not
have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the
Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it and would not be harmful
to the character and setting of the buildings.
the buildings must have been substantially completed at least 4 years before
the date of application
the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction and in sound
condition
the development complies with GB2 and LB3 (conversion of listed buildings)
55.
With regard to points ii) and iii) in turn, the buildings proposed to be converted date
back to the sixteenth century and a structural report has been submitted confirming
that the buildings are of substantial construction and in sound condition capable of
conversion.
56.
It is the level of proposed associated development and whether it would have a
materially greater impact on the Green Belt than the present situation that needs
consideration to ascertain whether the development constitutes an appropriate form of
development in accordance with PPG2 para 38 and Policies DP3 and GB1.
57.
It is acknowledged that there is a substantial amount of demolition proposed as part of
this development; however, these building are all agricultural buildings and whilst
many are unsightly they are an accepted apart of the character of the countryside.
The associated works required to support the scheme i.e. the replacement access
road and the new internal stretch of access road, coupled with the nature of the
change of use which would result in the creation of residential curtilages and
associated domestic paraphernalia, as well as an increase in level of activity on site,
albeit small, all cumulatively could result in the development having a materially
greater impact on the Green Belt than the current arrangement on site.
58.
As such the proposed development cannot be considered as an appropriate form of
development in the Green Belt in accordance Government guidance or development
plan policy. On this basis it can be concluded that the proposed development is
harmful by definition.
59.
In addition the construction of the new access road, internal access road and
outbuildings all constitute new development that in themselves do not fall into any of
the categories set out in PPG2 or GB1 which would enable them to be considered
appropriate development within the Green Belt.
60.
PPG2 and Green Belt development plan policy state that inappropriate forms of
development may be acceptable in the Green Belt should the applicant be able to
demonstrate very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm by reason of
inappropriateness and any other harm.
61.
The agent has put forward a case of very special circumstances and this is
reproduced below.
PVWRCM
14
Very Special Circumstances
1.
Improvement to Listed Buildings
“As well as representing benefits to the listed buildings, the proposed scheme clearly
includes significant improvements, which Cemex believe, amount to “exceptional
circumstances” in a green belt context. Most notably, a large unsightly and
incongruous addition to barn 2 with an external footprint of some 91 square metres is
to be removed as part of the proposals. Similarly a modern and inappropriate addition
to the south elevation of buildings 1 and 2 of 16 square metres is likewise to be
removed. The former is described by officers in preapplication correspondence
following a site visit as a ‘significant benefit.’
In addition to inappropriate additions, the setting of important listed buildings on site
have been seriously eroded as a result of the siting of buildings and the creation of
large expanses of hardstanding associated with past agricultural activities. The current
application seeks to improve the setting of barns 1, 2 and 3 through the demolition
and/or relocation of a number of buildings which lie adjacent. In particular, unattractive
and dilapidated structures with a combined footprint in excess of 500 squares metreswhich are located very close to important listed buildings 1, 2 and 3 re to be
demolished without being replaced.
Moreover, an existing portal framed building which is located only 4 metres from listed
barn 3 is to be relocated adjacent to existing agricultural buildings towards the west of
the site. In addition to significantly improving the setting of the listed buildings, officers
confirmed, in pre application correspondence, following a site visit that, ‘ Your
proposals involve demolishing some unsightly modern buildings and resiting the most
modern to create an enclave of buildings for the continuing farm activity. There are
proposals to utilise a range of traditional stables to provide storage and garaging and
to construct some similarly detailed structures to serve the rest of the development. All
of these aspects appear subject to seeing detailed designs, to be recreating
something more akin to a traditional farm yard setting and …… in terms of the historic
buildings, the proposals would be acceptable.’
2.
The openness of the green belt
Other outbuildings are to be demolished totalling 1095.5 square metres. Although new
build garages are to be erected as described above, these have a combined footprint
of only 360 square metres. There is therefore a net reduction in floor space of 735.5
square metres which would undoubtedly increase the openness of this green belt site.
Similarly there will also be a reduction in the extent of hardstanding which will also
increase the perception of openness and enhance the setting of the listed buildings.
3.
New access and roadway
Turning to the issue of the two lengths of access road, these clearly also have
significant benefits despite “prima facie” appearing to be inappropriate development in
the green belt. The new access road onto the A4094 is to be located to the north of
the gatehouse cottages. The proposed location can achieve satisfactory sightlines and
is of an acceptable design. More significantly, it will replace an existing access with
substandard sightlines closer to a dangerous bend on the A4094 which is to be closed
off and landscaped over as part of the current proposals. It is therefore a replacement
access, which will have no greater impact in the green belt than the existing but will
represent a significant improvement in highway safety terms. Moreover, whereas the
existing access is neither landscaped nor screened, the proposed landscaping
scheme shown on submitted drawing CSA/691/01 will ensure that the visual impact of
the new access is “softened” thereby reducing its impact further.
PVWRCM
15
On the basis that it represents an improvement in highway safety terms, the proposals
have been confirmed as acceptable by the Council’s Development Control Engineer.
Turning to the second length of access road and parking/turning area, which runs
immediately to the west of barn 1. It is intended that this will be closed off and grassed
over to provide a curtilage and improved setting for barn 1. The objective has been to
devise a site layout which both enhances the setting of the important listed buildings
on site but also groups functionally similar buildings together in order to improve site
circulation. Cemex believes that this is particularly important given that the three
agricultural buildings will be required for the continued operation of the farm in the
future.
The second section of access road on the western part of the site had been
repositioned closer to the relocated building in response to officers concerns about
encroachment into the green belt and a landscaping scheme will ensure that its
impact in the wider landscape will be minimised when viewed from the west. The
preapplication comments from officers in relation to the grouping of buildings referred
to above confirm that the proposed layout is acceptable in listed building terms which
is the overarching objective of the applications. This second length of access road is
necessary to facilitate the separation of uses and will also improve the setting of listed
buildings such that its appropriateness needs to be weighed against this guiding
design and access philosophy. The two replacement lengths of roadway will improve
highway safety and site circulation and will enhance the setting of barn 1. Cemex
therefore believes that these significant improvements surpass the “exceptional
circumstances” test in a green belt context.
4.
The creation of residential curtilages
As far as concerns about the creation of curtilages and associated domestic
paraphernalia are concerned, these are understood and have been addressed in the
scheme layout. Curtilages have been kept to a minimum appropriate to the plot and
are proposed to include appropriate landscaping and to reduce any impact in the
wider landscape. Similarly, it is open to the Local Planning Authority to control
curtilage structures, which they feel might be inappropriate in this location. Moreover,
in addition to improving the setting of listed buildings, the removal of hardstanding and
creation of predominately “soft” curtilages will also be beneficial in terms of flood risk
as acknowledged in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.
Finally it is worth noting that the impact of residential curtilages needs to be balanced
against the impact of the existing hardstanding, which whilst already detracting from
the setting of the listed buildings, would undoubtedly need to be expanded to
accommodate the parking requirements for alternative uses.”
62.
It is agreed that the demolition of the unsightly extensions to barns 1 and 2, the
demolition of unattractive and dilapidated structures in excess of 500 square metres in
proximity to barns 1, 2 and 3 and the relocation of the portal framed building would all
contribute significantly in enhancing the listed buildings and improving their settings.
This is considered to be of great benefit and to constitute the plank in the main case of
very special circumstances.
63.
A net reduction in floor space of 735.5 sq m is to be achieved which will undoubtedly
increase the openness of the site in Green Belt terms due to the reduction in built
form. However, the buildings to be demolished are agricultural buildings which are
accepted as part of the countryside landscape, furthermore the proposed envelope of
development remains broadly the same as existing and therefore this benefit of loss of
buildings is not considered in terms of very special circumstances to be of great
weight.
64.
The Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposed new access represents a
significant improvement in highway safety. The existing access offers substandard
PVWRCM
16
visibility and is very close to a bend. This improvement in highway safety is significant
and therefore officers consider that it forms part of the case of a very special
circumstance
65.
The last point put forward regards the proposed residential curtilages and states how
they have been kept to a minimum and would be treated as sympathetically as
possible. These points are not considered to contribute towards the case of very
special circumstances, rather they relate to design treatments that one would expect
given the location of the site within the Green Belt and within the setting of listed
buildings.
66.
PPG2 states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt
and that very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist
unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly
outweighed by other considerations. In this case it is considered that the applicants
have demonstrated that very special circumstances do exist to allow a grant of
approval. The main factors leading to this conclusion in relation to harm caused by
inappropriateness are items 1 and 3 as set out in the applicants case, i.e significant
enhancement to the character and appearance of the listed barns 1 and 2 through
loss of unsightly extensions, significant benefit to the setting of the listed buildings
through demolition of a significant amount of building and relocation of a large,
modern agricultural building and lastly the benefit to highway safety through the
relocation of the access road. Whilst there would be a significant reduction in built
form on the site this is considered to contribute to the case of very special
circumstances to a lesser degree.
(iii) Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt and Character of the countryside.
67.
Policy GB2 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for
new development or the replacement of existing buildings within the Green Belt if it
would:
a) have a greater impact on the openness of the green belt or the purposes of
including land within it than an existing development at the site.
b) harm the character of the countryside.
68.
In addition to this policy PPG 2 para 3.2 confirms that should “any other harm” be
caused by a development in addition to harm by inappropriateness, very special
circumstances can justify this harm provided it is clearly outweighed by other
considerations.
69.
As noted in paragraph 63 there would be an enhancement to the openness of the
Green Belt through the net loss of 735.5 square metres of building footprint. Whilst the
envelope of development would be broadly as existing the site would appear more
open and uncluttered.
70.
Section B of Policy GB2 sets out a number of criteria to be examined in relation to
impact of a proposal on the character of the countryside. The first involves the scale,
siting design and materials proposed. The new development proposed involves smallscale outbuildings, replacement access road and new internal access road.
71.
With regard to the proposed new access road this is a replacement road and
conditions would be imposed to ensure that the existing access and roadway are well
landscaped. However, the roadway would be upgraded and appear of more
substantial construction than the track road it is set to replace, this could be
considered as having an urbanising effect harmful to the character of the countryside
and or Green Belt. However, the case of very special circumstances as set out above
is considered to outweigh the relatively small level of actual harm this roadway may
cause. It is not considered this part of the development would have a greater impact
PVWRCM
17
on the openness of the Green Belt or character of the countryside to warrant refusal of
the application.
72.
The proposed new outbuildings have a maximum height of 5 metres to the ridge and
would be sited within the existing envelope of development and would represent
replacement buildings. They would be constructed of timber with brick plinths and
have been designed to replicate cart sheds in order to be in sympathy with their
surroundings. No actual harm is caused by these buildings and they are in
accordance with GB2.
73.
As previously described all curtilages have been kept to a minimum and are to be
denoted by natural vegetation, which can be controlled by condition. On this basis this
would not result in material harm to the countryside.
74.
The last issue to be considered with regard to new build is in relation to the new
internal road. The proposed landscaping scheme is set to enhance views of the site
and limit any harm caused by this roadway. Whilst, as with the new access, there
would be some harm caused to the character of the Green Belt and countryside, it is
limited and any actual harm would be clearly outweighed by the significant
improvement to the setting of the Listed Buildings as set out in the previous section of
this report.
75.
The proposed scheme would result in an intensification in the use of the site from the
creation of the five new dwellings. However the amount of activity generated by five
new households when viewed against the existing level of activity of site would not
result in a material intensification in the use of the site of such a degree that would
warrant refusal of this application given the case of very special circumstances which
provides benefits that outweigh this level of actual harm.
76.
The proposal would not lead to the loss of any grade 1,2 or 3a agricultural land or
woodland, nor would it cause harm to residential amenities in the locality. There is not
considered to be conflict with any other Local Plan policy.
(iv)
Policy CS20
77.
The Panel will be aware that the Borough is currently the subject of a temporary
housing restraint policy under Core Strategy Policy CS20 due to the exceptionally
high level of outstanding permissions for housing in relation to the Borough’s
Structure Plan housing allocation. The guidance for the implementation of that policy
adopted by Full Council in October 2005 with effect from 1st November 2005 still
applies.
78.
This guidance identifies that there are qualified exceptions to that restraint policy
where it need not be applied. One of these exceptions refers to development that
provides environmental or community benefits. The supporting text goes on to states
that development proposing the beneficial re-use or conversion of a listed building or
of a building within the curtilage of a listed building that affects the setting of that
listed building may be considered to constitute exceptional circumstance and as such
CS20 need not be applied.
79.
As demonstrated in part (i) of this report this development would result in the reuse of
3 listed buildings and 2 buildings within the curtilage of listed buildings. On this basis
this application may be considered as an exception to Policy CS20.
(v).
80.
PVWRCM
Whether the proposals are acceptable in terms of floodplain policy.
The site lies within flood zone 3 as shown on the Environment Agency’s latest maps
and therefore in accordance with PPS25 a flood risk assessment (FRA) has been
carried out and submitted as part of the application.
18
81.
Since the application has been submitted PPG25 has been replaced by PPS25. This
new guidance seeks to strengthen and clarify the role of the planning system in
managing flood risk and adapt to impacts of climate change. The aims of this new
policy statement are to ensure flood risk is properly taken into account, to prevent
inappropriate development in areas of high risk of flooding and direct development
away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary
in such areas, policies aim to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and,
where possible, reducing flood risk elsewhere.
82.
With regard to applications for change of use, Annex D of PPS25 states, “ applications
for minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the sequential or
exception test but will still have to meet the requirements for FRA and floodrisk
reduction.”
83.
Policy F1 of the Local Plan is also of relevance. This policy confirms that permission
for new residential or non residential development will not be granted unless it can be
demonstrated that the proposal would not either itself, or cumulatively with other
development, impede the flow of water, reduce the capacity of the floodplain or
increase the number of people or properties at risk from flooding.
84.
The lowest point of the site lies at 24.47m AOD in the south east corner and ground
levels rise gradually to over 26.0 AOD in the north west corner. The site is higher than
the surrounding agricultural land and lies partially above the modelled 1 in 100 year
River Thames fluvial flood level of 25.5m AOD. Using spot levels on the topographic
survey of the site, flood contours were constructed to identify the areas of the site
within the 1 in 100 year floodplain and the relevant flood depths. This information
demonstrates that Barns 1, 2 and 3 and some small outbuildings all lie within the
floodplain, with maximum flood level reaching 500mm. The remainder of the farmyard
and farm buildings remain above the floodplain, forming a dry island. The section of
track road which links the site to Sutton Road lies below the 1 in 100 year modelled
flood level, with maximum flood levels of 350mm.
85.
Recently issued national planning policy, PPS25, requires all flood assessment to
take on board the issue of climate change. Making an allowance for climate change
flood levels are projected to reach 25.8m AOD.
86.
Taking account of this increased level of flooding it is proposed to construct an earth
bund and raised roadway round the buildings to a minimum level of 26.1m AOD to
prevent the built up part of site from flooding. The height of the bund will vary
depending on existing ground levels, with a maximum height of 1.1 metres for one
small section and a general height of some 600mm. These flood defences will
provide protection to above the 1 in 100 year event.
87.
In order to provide a dry means of escape from the site the existing roadway would
be raised some 0.15 metres above its current level as well as the proposed roadway
within the site being raised a maximum of approximately 1.1 metres above ground
level. Lastly the new access road to the A4094 would be raised 0.3 metres above its
lowest point.
88.
Floodplain compensation would be provided on the surrounding land to compensate
for the floodplain storage lost due to these flood mitigation works. A conveyance
system would allow floodwater to flow through the raised road embankment to ensure
that present conditions are maintained. Further floodplain compensation involves
excavating an area of 4365 m2 to a depth of 0.25m. These compensation works are to
ensure the proposals have no adverse knock on effect on other land.
89.
Due to the proposed flood mitigation and compensation scheme the Environment
Agency raises no objection regarding flood storage capacity or free flow of flood
water.
PVWRCM
19
90.
The Environment Agency are raising an objection on the basis that the development
would place additional households into an area of flood risk and a safe escape has not
been provided. In order for the Agency to withdraw this objection a completely dry
means of escape would need to be provided to an area wholly outside of the
floodplain.
91.
Due to the raising of the proposed and existing road between the site and Sutton
Road a dry means of escape via the A4094 can now be provided to Cookham. From
here the latest flood mapping of the River Thames in the vicinity of Cookham suggests
that a short stretch of pathway, approximately 50metres, which would otherwise
provide a dry means of escape route from Cookham to an area completely outside the
floodplain would be flooded in the 1 in 100 year event to a maximum level of 140mm.
92.
It is important to note that this development offers the following flooding benefits:
-
93.
a reduction in the area of impermeable hard standing and associated surface
water run off.
The flood protection bund would provide protection to the existing 16 residents on
the site as well as the new ones.
Road raising and the repositioning of the access onto the A4094 now provides a
dry means of escape onto the Sutton Road for existing residents as well as the
new ones.
The applicant has also submitted the following information with regard to recent
appeal decisions and the issue of dry means of escape.
“Cemex believe that the outcome of recent appeals where the issue of dry access was
specifically considered is also relevant to the current application. In particular, two joint
appeal
decisions
(references
APP/E0345/A/04/1163841/1167101
and
EO345/A/1160643/1190746 are relevant. In the latter case, a dry escape route of 158
metres through water of up to 290mm deep was considered by the Inspector to be
acceptable and in the former, a 600m route through water of up to 300 mm deep was
also considered to be acceptable . In both cases the length of the route and depth of
floodwater was much greater than the current application and it is notable from
paragraph 9 of the decision letter in respect of the first appeal that the EA agreed that
the maximum depth of water should not exceed 300mm The stance being adopted by
the EA in respect of the current application is clearly at odds with these appeal
decision “ .
94.
The small stretch of the escape route that would be flooded is not considered to
outweigh the real flood benefits existing residents would experience from the raised
roadway and protective bund. On this basis the application is not recommended for
refusal on flooding grounds and it is considered to comply generally with the aims and
objectives of PPS25.
95.
With regard to the objections regarding climate change and ground water flooding the
Environment Agency has provided a full response to these issues. In summary,
however, they consider that the recommended planning conditions take into account
these concerns.
96.
The Environment Agency has been informed of officers’ intention to recommend the
application for approval. On this basis the Environment Agency has recommended a
set of conditions all of which have been attached. Notwithstanding this, due to the
Environment Agency’s objection the application would have to be referred to G.O.S.E.
Subject to G.O.S.E raising no objection permission may then be granted.
(vi).
PVWRCM
The impact of the proposal on the highway network, the acceptability of
the proposed access, and the appropriateness of proposed level of on
site parking
20
97.
The Highway Authority strongly supports the proposed new access and the removal of
the existing access to the south of the site since it provides a real improvement in
highway safety terms. The existing access under the arch of the Gate House is set to
remain as existing. This access does not provide good visibility but is not sufficiently
poor to warrant refusal or to justify a condition requiring it to be stopped up,
particularly given the low level of use which would result. The applicant has been
advised that he should consider limiting or restricting the use of the access and giving
priority to the new access. This the applicant has confirmed this will be the case, with
only the occupiers of the Gate Houses have use of the existing access.
98.
No objection is raised to the internal arrangement of the new access road, or to the
proposed level of car parking. Each dwelling has a minimum of 3 on site car parking
spaces with informal driveways. Whilst the level of car parking exceeds the Council’s
maximum standards given the location and circumstances of the development no
objection is raised.
99.
The proposed conversion of the barns to residential units would not have a significant
effect on traffic generated onto the A4094.
(vii)
100.
The impact of the proposals on the amenities of nearby occupiers.
The existing residential properties on site consist of The Old Pump House (shown as
building 8), Rose Cottage, The Farmhouse and West Dean. Due to the spacing and
siting of these properties in relation to the barns proposed to be converted, the
carsheds and new roadway the proposed development would result in no significant
loss of amenities to the occupiers of these existing properties.
(viii)
The impact of the proposals on trees and other landscape features.
101.
The entrance drive to the farm is characterised by a semi-mature lime avenue along
the western with mature Poplars towards the eastern end. The new access off Sutton
Road is acceptable as it seeks to mitigate the loss of the semi mature lime trees
located at the point of entry onto the existing drive.
102.
There would be no conflict with the existing trees from the raised roadway proposed to
serve the barn conversions. Furthermore the soft ground areas surrounding the
proposed buildings are spacious and will accommodate a quality landscape plan with
room to plant large native trees in keeping with the rural character of the area.
103.
All in all the proposed scheme would not have a detrimental impact on the rural
landscape of the area or harm any trees of high amenity value. Conditions are
recommended to ensure that a tree survey and tree protection plan is implemented as
well as securing further landscape details.
(ix)
Nature Conservation Matters
104.
Policy N10 of the Local Plan states that development will not be permitted if it would
adversely affect the conservation of flora or fauna protected by law. A survey has
been carried out of the buildings to assess where the buildings may be colonised by
bats and barn owls, both of which are protected.
105.
No evidence of barn owls was recorded, nonetheless a barn owl nesting box will be
attached to a suitable tree to encourage the species in the future. Bats were recorded
in barn 3 and all works to barn 3 would require a licence.
106.
On the basis of the survey carried out and with the implementation strategy outlined in
the bat report, the proposed development would not adversely affect any protected
species. The survey report has been forwarded to the Council’s consultants for their
comments and these will be reported in the late observation report to follow.
PVWRCM
21
(x)
107.
Infrastructure
The development would place additional pressure on local infrastructure from
additional residents and as such Policies IMP1 and R3 and Supplementary Planning
Guidance require the development to provide infrastructure, services, facilities and
amenities in connection with the development. Were permission to be granted the
following would need to be secured through a legal planning obligation.
£23,400 for public open space to go towards Maidenhead northern parishes land
purchase or lease for formal use, Braywick Park – formal sports provision and
landscape improvements at Bellrope Meadow.
£19,815.58 for education provision at local schools;
£2,000 towards supervised out of school and school holiday activities.
£2,685 towards mobile and homes library service.
£12,930 towards traffic and highway improvements on A4094 Sutton Road.
£7,385 towards pool and indoor sport improvements at the Magnet Leisure Centre
An acceptable unilateral undertaking to secure these contributions has been
submitted
(xi)
108.
Sustainability Issues
Structure Plan policy DP1 promotes development within settlements in order to
promote sustainable development and protect the countryside. Whilst this
development is not located within a settlement area it does largely involve the re-use
of existing buildings. On this basis no policy objection is raised on sustainability
grounds.
Conclusion
109.
The proposal involves the conversion of five listed barns into residential properties.
The proposed alterations and the demolition of inappropriate and unsightly extensions
and outbuildings would significantly improve the setting of the listed buildings and go
some way to recreating the farm yard setting more akin to their historical origin. The
proposed conversions comply with PPG15 and Local Plan policy and will contribute to
the restoration and preservation of these important buildings.
110.
The site is located within the Green Belt. A case of very special circumstances has
been put forward by the applicant which clearly outweighs any harm by
inappropriateness or actual harm that may be caused to the openness and/or
undeveloped character of the Green Belt. Furthermore, high quality landscaping
proposals and the sympathetic design of the new build further mitigates any harm that
may be caused and would assimilate the development with its surroundings.
111.
A Flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application and this puts
forwards a scheme of flood mitigation and compensation, which the Environment
Agency consider acceptable. Whilst there is a remaining objection regarding lack of
safe escape, it is considered the real flooding benefits of the bund and raised road
way to the existing residents on the site outweighs the Environment Agency’s
objection.
112.
It has been demonstrated that the proposed scheme would not harm the amenities of
the existing residents on site by means of overlooking or an increase in noise and
disturbance. Neither would the scheme have a detrimental impact on any protected
species that may be present on the site.
PVWRCM
22
113.
The Highway Authority supports the application and in particular the new access onto
Sutton Road. Furthermore an acceptable unilateral undertaking has been submitted to
secure the relevant contributions towards highway improvements and other
infrastructure and community projects.
114
All in all this scheme complies with the thrust of government policy and the
development plan and is recommended for approval.
Recommendation:
That the application be permitted subject to referral
to G.O.S.E and there being no objection raised.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
C09 Samples of materials
C30E Rem of PD Rights - Res Class A,B _ E
Notwithstanding the provisions of Class, H of part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no satellite dish
shall be installed on barns 1 to 5 without planning permission having first been
obtained from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the character of the Listed Building.
C31 Removal of PD - walls and fences
C32 Walls/fencing details
C58D Demolition of Buildings - Green Belt
C64 Landscaping Scheme
C47 Details of tree protection
No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a phased programme of archaeological work, in
accordance with the agreed mitigation strategy and a written scheme of investigation
(WSI), which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning
Authority.
Reason: The site is within an area of archaeological potential, as identified through
recent evaluation works. A programme of archaeological works (likely to involve
evaluation trail trenching, watching brief, archaeological excavation and/or strip, map
and sample techniques) is required to mitigate the impact of development and ensure
preservation by record of any surviving remains
No development shall commence (including site clearance or demolition) until
detailed drawings of all groundworks, including foundations, drainage and those of
statutory undertakers, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, extent and depth of all
excavations, and these works shall be carried out and completed in accordance only
with the details approved.
Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation measures are implemented for any
disturbance to below-ground archaeological deposits. The development details
should include the location, extent and depth of all excavations to insure that the
appropriate scenarios listed in the mitigation strategy may be detailed in a "written
scheme of investigation".
HA10 Stopping Up
HA15 Bonded Surface Access
HA25 Parking and Turning as Approved Drawing
HA21 Required Visibility Splays
'Level for Level' compensatory flood storage works shall be carried out in accordance
with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
23
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PVWRCM
Planning Authority before the development commences. The compensation works
shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before
any other construction on site, including the flood protection bund and the raising of
the link road.
Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding that would otherwise be caused by
a reduction in flood storage capacity.
Development of the site shall not begin until a scheme for flood openings within the
link road have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details
before the raising of the link road.
Reason:To alleviate the increased risk of flooding that would otherwise be caused by
a reduction in flood storage capacity and impedance of floodwater flows.
NOTE: Details shall include detailed hydraulic / hydrological modelling and blockage
scenario testing.
A management plan / agreement for the flood protection bund and flood water
openings under the link road, to be maintained in perpetuity for the lifetime of the
development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
before development commences.
Reason: To prevent the increase in flood risk both to the site and elsewhere through
the lack of maintenance to the link road flood water openings and flood protection
bund.
Development of the site shall not begin until a scheme for a flood protection bund,
including a hydrogeological assessment (detailing impacts on groundwater flow and
proposals to mitigate groundwater flooding) has been submitted to and approved by
the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in
accordance with the approved details before the main building works are
commenced.
Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding that would otherwise be caused by
a reduction in flood storage capacity and impedance of floodwater flows.
Buildings shall be flood proofed prior to the occupation of the development. Details of
the flood proofing shall be submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority
prior to the commencement of the development and provide protection to a level at or
above the 1 in 100 year floodwater level allowance for climate change 300mm
freeboard.
Reason: To prevent the risk of internal flooding from groundwater.
Development of the site shall not begin until drainage details, incorporating
sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and
hydrogeological context of the development, have been submitted to and approved
by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in
accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.
Reason: To mitigate the increase in runoff rates runoff volumes and increased
pollution load to receiving watercourses caused by development. NOTE: Details to be
in accordance with the 'Interim national procedure for rainfall runoff management for
developments' or current superseding equivalent.
There shall be no storage of any materials including soil within that part of the site
liable to flood.
Reason:To alleviate the increased risk of flooding that would otherwise be caused by
a reduction in flood storage capacity and impedance of floodwater flows.
A Flood Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Authority and shall be implemented, maintained and reviewed annually.
Reason: To ensure residents are aware of the potential risks of flooding at the site
and what appropriate measures need to be taken in a flood event.
24
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward: Bray Parish Agenda No. 3
Council
07/00054/FULL
Full
Location:
Construction of a 2 bedroom end terrace house with access
and parking.
Land At And 7 Priors Way Maidenhead
Applicant:
Mr Dominic Santacaterina
Agent:
Mr Brian Laver
Date Received:
8th January 2007
Case Officer:
David Islip
Recommendation:
DLA
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement
Sustainable Development Implications:
More efficient
developed land
use
of
previously
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, H10, H11, P4, IMP1
Structure Plan – DP5
Submission Core Strategy – CS20
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
05/02863 Two bedroom end of
terrace house and access
and parking + s/storey rear
extension
3.
Refused
25 January 2006
Appeal Part
Allowed (extension)
and part dismissed
(house)
9 October 2006
The Highway Authority
No objection subject to conditions.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
One letter received from a local resident (unsigned) objecting to the proposal,
summarised as follows:
- Over development which would be lead to added pressure on local parking for other
residents
- Would adversely affect the quality of life for other residents.
5.
Environmental Protection Unit
No objection subject to imposition of condition with respect to contaminated land.
PVWRCM
25
REMARKS
This application was deferred at the meeting of the Maidenhead Development Control
Panel on 14 March, to seek further legal advice on the status and weight of Policy
CS20 within the emerging Local Development Framework documents in relation to this
specific application.
This advice will be given in the Late Observations at the meeting.
The Site and Surroundings
1.
The site is located on the south side of Priors Way and consists of an end of terrace
dwelling with a large garden to the front, side and rear. The dwelling has two allocated
parking spaces; one within the garage court to the south of the property and the other
in an open parking area to the side of the house.
2.
The property is in a predominately residential area immediately to the north of the
Priors Way industrial area, within the urban area of Maidenhead.
The Proposal
3.
Permission is sought to erect a two bedroom house attached to the flank wall of the
existing dwelling. Its size and design is almost identical to the other properties in this
terrace of three dwellings. The existing parking arrangement would be retained for
number seven and two new parking spaces provided to the side of the new house
4.
This application is the same as application 05/02863, other than the current application
excludes the extension granted by the appeal Inspector in the subsequent appeal.
Principal Planning Issues
5.
The Council refused application 05/02863 in January 2006 on two grounds, namely:
i) The conflict with the Council’s policy of housing restraint relating to the potential
oversupply of new housing against the housing allocations for the Borough in both the
Local Plan and the revised Structure Plan for Berkshire 2001-2016; and
ii) The lack of a mechanism to secure contributions to offset the impact of the
development on related infrastructure.
6.
The relevant local policies, physical characteristics of the site and surrounding area
have not changed materially since this decision was made and therefore it represents a
significant material consideration in determining the current application. It would not be
reasonable to introduce new reasons for refusal which were not given for application
05/02863.
7.
An appeal against the refusal of application 05/02863 was allowed in respect of the
conservatory but the Inspector dismissed the new dwelling on the basis that the
proposal failed to make adequate financial provision towards the cost of improving
specifically identified, off-site infrastructure, services and facilities in the local area.
8.
In his consideration of the other reason for refusal, (the management of the over supply
of housing provision) the Inspector, in his decision letter dated 9th October 2006, was of
the view that the proposal was for “a modest single dwelling” and that the restraint
approach was not consistent with the general thrust of Government guidance for areas
where there are high or rising house prices.
9.
A single Inspector’s decision on a judgement of this nature does not prescribe the
future direction for the implementation of the Council’s approach and there have
equally been decisions which have taken the contrary view to this Inspector. However,
PVWRCM
26
as the appeal decision relates to this particular site and an identical proposal for a new
dwelling, your Officers consider that it would be unreasonable for the Council to
maintain its established position in relation to housing restraint in this particular
instance.
10.
As such the primary matter for consideration relates to the securing of contributions
relating to infrastructure and amenity requirements to offset the impact of additional
residents on community infrastructure. In order to offset this, and in accordance with
the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Planning Obligations and
Developer Contributions, the proposal would require contributions towards off-site
public open space provision (£2,808), indoor sports facilities (£885), community
facilities (£400), library services (£537), education (£6,985) and public
transport/highways (£2,586). The applicants have submitted a draft unilateral
undertaking in respect of the above which is being checked by the Council’s Legal
Services. Subject to this undertaking being satisfactory, it would mitigate the harm
caused by additional residents, consistent with the provisions of the Development Plan.
Conclusion
11.
The proposal has been submitted further to an application refused by the Council
where the Secretary of State’s appeal Inspector subsequently determined that the only
reason to withhold planning permission was the absence of a mechanism to mitigate
the impact of the additional residents on community infrastructure. A draft undertaking
to provide this mitigation has now been provided and, subject to it being satisfactory,
the Inspector’s reason for withholding planning permission has been overcome.
Recommendation:
Defer and delegate authority to the Head of
Planning to:
i) Grant planning permission subject to the
completion of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking
and the following conditions; or
ii) Refuse planning permission if a satisfactory
unilateral undertaking has not been received within
three months of the date of this Panel.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
C09 Samples of materials
No development shall take place within the area of archaeological interest until the
applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in
accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the continued preservation in situ or by record of this area of
archaeological interest. Relevant Policies - Local Plan ARCH2, ARCH4, Structure
Plan EN4.
HA04 Access Construction - details
HA15 Bonded Surface Access - 5
EH19 Contaminated land
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until vehicle parking
and turning space has been provided in accordance with a layout which has been
previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The
27
8
parking shall thereafter be permanently maintain solely for the parking of vehicles in
connection with the domestic use of the dwellings.
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities
in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other
road users; also to ensure vehicles enter and leave the highway in forward gear.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan P4.
The existing parking for No 7 Priors Way, as shown on the approved drawing, shall
be retained and kept available for parking of motor vehicles in connection with the
authorised use of the property at all times.
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities
in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other
road users; also, to ensure vehicles enter and leave the highway in forward gear.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan P4.
Informative(s)
1
2
3
4
5
PVWRCM
HI04
HI06
HI07
HI29
IEH02
Highway Licence
Damage to footways and verges
Damage to the Highway
No Equipment/Materials On Public Highway
Prior Consent
28
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Parish/Ward: Maidenhead Agenda No. 4
Riverside Ward
07/00230/FULL
Full
Proposal:
Rear extension with basement
Location:
31 Moor Lane Maidenhead SL6 7JX
Applicant:
Mr & Mrs P Hird
Agent:
Not applicable
Date Received:
26th January 2007
Case Officer:
Michael Byrne
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement.
Sustainable Development Implications:
Improvement of the housing stock.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, H14, P4 and T5; and
Structure Plan – DP5.
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
None
3.
The Highway Authority
The Highway Officer raises no objection subject to a condition being attached
requiring the existing parking spaces to be retained.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
One letter has been received from no.29 Moor Lane, the neighbouring property to the
east, concerned over the loss of day light and sun light, together with the impact of
the proposed basement on the foundations of no.29.
5.
Parish Council
N/A.
REMARKS
1.
This application has been promoted by Councillor Alison Napier so that it can be
discussed by the Panel.
The Site and Surrounding
2.
PVWRCM
No.31 is a semi-detached bungalow situated on the south side of Moor Lane and the
neighbouring dwellings are bungalows of a similar style.
29
The Proposal
3.
The application seeks full planning permission to erect a single storey rear extension
to provide a dining room, study and en-suite master bedroom, with a part basement
under to provide a store/games room. The basement would be accessed by external
stairs to the rear and the extension would mirror the height and design of the existing
bungalow. The proposed dining room would have French doors onto the garden and
these doors would have a fan light above requiring a small dormer roof over the
French doors.
Principal Planning Issues
4.
The main planning issues in determining this application are considered to be:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
the impact on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the
street scene;
the impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring properties; and
the impact on highway safety.
5.
The proposal is for a large extension to the rear of the bungalow and it would reflect
the height and design of the existing dwelling. The appearance of the proposed rear
elevation would mirror the existing elevation with the exception of the low dormer
proposed over the French doors. The proposed basement would not have any
significant impact on the character or appearance of the original dwelling.
6.
There are three windows proposed in the side elevations of the extension. These are
to a study, an en-suite and the third is an obscured glass wall that would face the
blank side wall of the neighbour’s existing extension at no.29. There are three
windows on the side of the other neighbour at no. 33 and these are to a secondary
kitchen window in a rear extension, a bathroom which has obscured glass, and a
bedroom window towards the front of the bungalow. There is a high boundary fence
between the application site and no. 33 and it is considered that it would be
unnecessary to attach any conditions to a permission requiring the proposed windows
to the study and en-suite to be fitted with obscure glass.
7.
The proposed extension would be close to the neighbours’ boundaries but the
properties are south facing and the roof would be hipped back to the ridge and it is
considered that the main bulk of the proposal would not have any significant
overbearing impact on the adjoining neighbours. It is considered that there would be
no significant harm caused to the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy,
outlook, daylight, sunlight or otherwise. The light angle guidelines in the Guidance
Note "House Extensions" at Appendix 12 of the Local Plan would not be infringed.
8.
Sufficient space would remain on the site to accommodate the two car parking spaces
required for the resulting dwelling in compliance with the adopted parking standards in
Appendix 7 of the Local Plan as amended by the Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead Parking Strategy, May 2004. The highway officer has suggested a
condition requiring the existing parking spaces to be retained. However, it is not
considered that such a condition is necessary for the single additional bedroom
proposed given the extent of frontage parking available on the site, that Moor Lane is
not a classified road and there are no on-street parking restrictions.
Other Material Considerations
9.
PVWRCM
The concerns of the neighbour at no.29 regarding the loss of sun light in the late
afternoon and evening are acknowledged. There is a high boundary fence on the
common boundary with no.31 and the orientation of the south facing properties (the
extension would be to the west) would mean that the roof of the extension would be
hipped back northwards towards the main bungalow. Under the circumstances, and
30
with the light angle guidelines in the Guidance Note "House Extensions" at Appendix
12 of the Local Plan not being infringed, it is considered that there would not be a
significant loss of sun light in the late afternoon or evening reaching the rear of no.29
to a degree that would be sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application.
10.
The impact of the construction of the basement on foundations, and access to
guttering and fencing, are not material planning considerations, either being dealt with
by other legislation (in the form of Building Regulations) or being a private matter
between the parties.
Conclusion
11.
The proposed rear extension would not have any significant detrimental impact on the
character and appearance of the original dwelling house nor the street scene.
Although the proposed extension would project further than the extensions on the
neighbouring properties, the light angle guidelines in the Guidance Note "House
Extensions" at Appendix 12 of the Local Plan would not be infringed, and the roof
would be hipped back thereby reducing the visual impact from the neighbouring
properties.
Recommendation:
That planning permission be granted subject
to the following conditions:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
31
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward: Bray Parish Agenda No. 5
Council
07/00236/FULL
Full
Location:
Change of Use of approximately 70 square metres of 'Nissen
Hut' from agriculture to allow continued use as an audiovisual rental business
Thimble Farm Sturt Green Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2JH
Applicant:
T Bennett
Agent:
Geo-Plan Consultants Ltd
Date Received:
26th January 2007
Case Officer:
Christopher Colloff
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt; and
Adjacent a Public Footpath.
Sustainable Development Implications:
Re-use of vacant buildings.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, GB8, R14, P4, T5; and
Structure Plan – DP3.
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Reference
Description
Decision
07/00237
Change of Use of
approximately 70
square metres of
'Nissen Hut' from
agriculture to allow
continued use as an
embroidery business
Change of use of
approximately 40m2
of 'Nissen Hut' from
agriculture to animal
grooming (sui generis)
Change of Use of part
from agriculture to
screen printing
Retention of concrete
drive and
hardstanding
Change of Use of
building to B1 and B8
building divided into
five areas
Change of use of
Pending decision
(application also
on this agenda)
06/01791
06/01730
06/00928
05/00603
04/01072
PVWRCM
32
Date
Appeal allowed
7th March 2007
Appeal allowed
7th March 2007
Refused
6th June 2006
Refused
27th April 2005
Appeal Dismissed
6th July 2005
03/39993
02/39624
98/32804
3.
building and land to
B1(c) (light industrial)
or B8 (storage) with
no distribution
(retrospective)
Certificate of
Lawfulness for an
existing use of a
former nissen hut
within class B2
Concrete
hardstanding around
existing Nissen Hut
retrospective.
Conversion of barn to
farm house,
conversion of barn to
grooms’ quarters,
construction of
stables, haystore,
machinery store and
garage.
Refused
27th May 2003
Refused
13th January
2003
Refused
20th September
1999
The Highway Authority
The Highway Officer raises no objection subject to conditions to include a
requirement for the construction of a passing bay within the single lane section of
Sturt Green.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
- the placement of any industrial unit at the end of Sturt Green will adversely impact
on highway safety;
- any increase in vehicular traffic will have a detrimental impact on the safety of the
residents, the walkers and the horses that use the bridleway;
- the placement of industrial units would not be in keeping with the immediate vicinity
within the Green Belt;
- nothing has changed from the scheme previously dismissed on appeal and the
proposal conflicts with policies GB2, GB8 and T5 of the Local Plan;
- the current unauthorised use is generating traffic early in the morning and traffic
travelling towards the end of the road is almost exclusively caused by this
residential area;
- the change will not in any way improve the environment of Sturt Green;
- there are no pavements for pedestrians to take refuge from the traffic which largely
ignores the 30mph speed limit; and
- the grass verges have been badly damaged by traffic.
5.
Bray Parish Council
No comments received at the time of writing the report.
reported as Late Observations.
Any response will be
REMARKS
1.
PVWRCM
The application has been promoted to the Maidenhead Development Control Panel by
Councillor Walters, together with application 07/00237 which also appears on this
agenda.
33
The Site and Surrounding
2.
The site is a Nissen hut located at the end of Sturt Green adjacent to the point where
the road becomes a footpath and bridleway known as Thrift Lane. The road is a quiet
rural road located within the Green Belt which consists primarily of residential
properties with the exception of the farm units of Thimble Farm and Belmont Farm
which are both located at the western end of the road.
3.
The site has been the subject of several previous planning applications, including an
application for the change of use of the whole of the Nissen hut into Class B1 and
Class B8 use (application ref. 04/01072). This application was refused and dismissed
on appeal with the Inspector advising:
“Whilst the reuse of the building alone does not impact materially on openness, I have
also to consider the associated uses of the land around the building. The
unauthorised hard-standing on the site at present itself conflicts with openness,
although hardstanding areas such as the one associated with the nearby farm
buildings are not uncommon in rural areas. However, the parking of cars that would
inevitably be required to access such a remote site would also cause significant harm
to the openness….Even if outside working and storage were prohibited, the inevitable
activities including car parking outside the buildings if all nine units were in use,
together with the comings and goings of employees and delivery vehicles, would
cause significant harm to openness by comparison to an agricultural use of the
building….. The building also provides over 500 sq m of floorspace and as such
significantly exceeds the 300 sq m limit specified in Policy GB8.”
4.
Two applications for the use of individual units within the larger Nissen hut were
refused on the grounds that the proposals would lead to an increase in vehicular
activity on a long stretch of road of substandard width and which is also a bridleway,
and at the junction of Sturt Green and Ascot Road, that would adversely impact on the
safety of the users of the bridleway and the junction with Ascot Road. The appeals
against the refusals were allowed with the Inspector advising:
“Whilst (the single lane track) could lead to conflict between road users and other
users of the bridleway beyond, it seems to me that for the relatively small numbers of
vehicle movements likely to be associated with the proposed businesses, this
problem could be resolved by the construction of a passing bay…even without the
proposed businesses the road would continue to serve the farm and other properties
in the area and the potential for conflict would remain.”
The Proposal
5.
The application submitted seeks permission for a change of use of 70 square metres of
the Nissen hut on the site to use for an audio-visual rental business and is a
retrospective application. A second application seeking permission for the change of
use of another 70 square metre section of the building for use by an embroidery
business has also been submitted and is considered under application ref. 07/00237
the report on which also appears on this agenda.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
The main planning issues in determining the application are considered to be:
7.
8.
the impact of the proposed change of use on the Green Belt; and
the impact on highway safety.
As two recent applications have been allowed on appeal for the change of use of a total
of 110 sq m of the Nissen hut, the cumulative impact of the approved uses and the
PVWRCM
34
uses proposed under both this application and application ref. 07/00237 should be
considered in assessing the acceptability of the proposals.
7.
Policy GB1 of the Local Plan details that the change of use of buildings in accordance
with Policy GB8 can be considered as appropriate development within the Green Belt.
Policy GB8 contains several criteria that should be met for the change of use of
buildings to be permitted. These include that the use proposed, including any external
activities, should not have a materially greater impact than the present or last use on
the openness of the Green Belt; that the change of use to business and industrial uses
within any individual agricultural complex of more than 300 sq m of floor space will not
be permitted; that the building should be of permanent construction and in sound
condition; that the provision of access and parking complies with the adopted standards
of the Council and would not adversely affect highway safety; and that there is no
conflict with Policy GB2 of the Local Plan.
8.
The building is of permanent construction and of sound condition. Furthermore, the
current lawful use of the buildings on the site is for agriculture with the exception of 110
sq m of the Nissen hut that were granted approval for use for dog grooming and screen
printing. The use proposed, combined with the existing lawful uses and that proposed
under application ref. 07/00236, would, if approved, result in a total of 250 sq m of the
Nissen hut being used for non-agricultural purposes. As such in principle the change of
use is acceptable provided that the use would not result in a materially greater impact
on the openness of the Green Belt than the previous or last use; that the access and
parking provision is acceptable; and that it would not conflict with Policy GB2 of the
Local Plan.
9.
In determining the previous appeals against the refusal of permission for use by a
screen printing and a dog grooming business, the Inspector advised that:
“It seems to me that, although the proposed uses are likely to create some additional
traffic on Sturt Green, the number of trips would be quite low and the nature and size of
the proposed businesses would not attract particularly large vehicles.”
Subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring a passing bay to be provided within the
single lane section of Sturt Green and restricting the uses authorised, the applications
were considered to be acceptable in terms of the impacts on highway safety and the
impact on the Green Belt.
10.
Details submitted with the current application indicate that the use is operated by two
people and generates some four vehicle movements per day and that the equipment is
transported in estate cars with no requirement for the use of HGVs at all. This appears
to be supported by discussions held on site with one of the employees of the
neighbouring unit and by previous site visits carried out by both the Planning Officer
and the Principal Enforcement Officer over the past year. The employee also provided
details of the number of movements associated with the embroidery use and these are
detailed in the report for application ref. 07/00237.
11.
Whilst the use results in some parking outside the unit, it is considered that the level of
parking for the existing and proposed uses would not result in any material impact on
the openness of the Green Belt over and above an agricultural use. There has been
previous enforcement issues relating to the hard standing on the site. However,
regardless of the outcome of the issues relating to the existing hard standing, there is
sufficient space within the site to accommodate the parking for the uses proposed.
12.
Overall the combined impact of the use proposed, taken together with the existing
permitted uses and the use the subject of application ref. 07/00237, is not considered to
result in a material greater impact on the Green Belt than an agricultural use of the
building. No objection has been raised by the Highway Officer subject to the provision
of a passing bay on the single lane section of Sturt Green. As such the proposed
PVWRCM
35
change of use is considered to comply with Policies GB1, GB2, GB8, T5 and R14 of the
Local Plan.
Other Material Considerations
13.
14.
At present it appears that an existing barn building on the site, together with some of
the adjoining buildings, may be being used for the storage of marquees. If such a use is
taking place it would take the total floor space used for non-agricultural purposes to
over 300 sq m and as such would conflict with Policy GB8 of the Local Plan. The
applicant’s agent has indicated that the building is used for storing marquees in
connection with the applicant’s polo business. However, it is likely that permission is
required for this use and further investigations are being undertaken. This is a matter
for effective enforcement and is not considered to be determinant on the outcome of
the current application.
Conclusion
It is considered that the proposed use is a relatively low key operation and the impact,
when combined with existing permitted uses on the site and the other proposed use for
dog grooming, would not result in any conflict with the policies of the Development Plan
as detailed above. However, as the use of the unit for alternative purposes could result
in higher levels of traffic and greater levels of outside activity, it is considered that any
permission should include a condition to restrict the use of the unit (as was the case on
the recent applications allowed on appeal).
Recommendation:
That permission is granted subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
PVWRCM
Within three months of the date of this approval, details of a passing bay to be
created in Sturt Green shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The passing bay shall thereafter be constructed within six months
of the date of approval and in accordance with the approved details and shall be
permanently retained and maintained free from obstruction.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5 and
R14.
The use hereby permitted shall be limited to the use for an audio visual rental
company.
Reason: The nature of the use is considered to be acceptable in relation to the impact
on highway safety and the openness of the Green Belt. However, alternative uses
may adversely impact on highway safety and the openness of the Green Belt.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB1, GB2, GB8 and T5; Structure Plan DP3.
36
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward: Bray Parish Agenda No. 6
Council
07/00237/FULL
Full
Location:
Change of Use of approx 70 square metres of 'Nissen Hut'
from agriculture to allow continued use as an embroidery
business
Thimble Farm Sturt Green Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2JH
Applicant:
T Bennett
Agent:
Geo-Plan Consultants Ltd
Date Received:
26th January 2007
Case Officer:
Christopher Colloff
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt; and
Adjacent a Public Footpath.
Sustainable Development Implications:
Re-use of vacant buildings.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, GB8, R14, P4, T5; and
Structure Plan – DP3.
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Reference
Description
Decision
07/00236
Change of Use of
approximately 70
square metres of
'Nissen Hut' from
agriculture to allow
continued use as an
audio-visual rental
business
Change of use of
approximately 40m2
of 'Nissen Hut' from
agriculture to animal
grooming (sui generis)
Change of Use of part
from agriculture to
screen printing
Retention of concrete
drive and
hardstanding
Change of Use of
building to B1 and B8
building divided into
five areas
Pending
decision.
06/01791
06/01730
06/00928
05/00603
PVWRCM
37
Date
Appeal allowed
7th March 2007
Appeal allowed
7th March 2007
Refused
6th June 2006
Refused
27th April 2005
04/01072
03/39993
02/39624
98/32804
3.
Change of use of
building and land to
B1(c) (light industrial)
or B8 (storage) with
no distribution
(retrospective)
Certificate of
Lawfulness for an
existing use of a
former nissen hut
within class B2
Concrete
hardstanding around
existing Nissen Hut
retrospective.
Conversion of barn to
farm house,
conversion of barn to
grooms quarters,
construction of
stables, haystore,
machinery store and
garage.
Appeal
Dismissed
6th July 2005
Refused
27th May 2003
Refused
13th January
2003
Refused
20th September
1999
The Highway Authority
No objection subject to conditions including a requirement for the construction of a
passing bay within the single lane section of Sturt Green.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Three letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
- the placement of any industrial unit at the end of Sturt Green will adversely impact
on highway safety;
- any increase in vehicular traffic will have a detrimental impact on the safety of the
residents, the walkers and the horses that use the bridleway;
- the placement of industrial units would not be in keeping with the immediate vicinity
within the Green Belt;
- nothing has changed from the scheme previously dismissed on appeal and the
proposal conflicts with policies GB2, GB8 and T5 of the Local Plan;
- the current unauthorised use is generating traffic early in the morning and traffic
travelling towards the end of the road is almost exclusively caused by this
residential area;
- the change will not in any way improve the environment of Sturt Green;
- there are no pavements for pedestrians to take refuge from the traffic which largely
ignores the 30mph speed limit; and
- the grass verges have been badly damaged by traffic.
5.
Bray Parish Council
No comments received at the time of writing the report.
reported as Late Observations.
Any response will be
REMARKS
1.
PVWRCM
The application has been promoted to the Maidenhead Development Control Panel by
Councillor Walters together with application ref. 07/00236.
38
The Site and Surrounding
2.
The site is located at the end of Sturt Green adjacent to the point where the road
becomes a footpath and bridleway known as Thrift Lane. The road is a quiet rural road
located within the Green Belt which consists primarily of residential properties with the
exception of the farm units of Thimble Farm and Belmont Farm which are both located
at the western end of the road.
3.
The site has been the subject of several previous planning applications including an
application for the change of use of the whole of the Nissen hut into Class B1 and
Class B8 use (application ref. 04/01072). This application was refused and dismissed
on appeal with the Inspector stating:
“Whilst the reuse of the building alone does not impact materially on openness, I have
also to consider the associated uses of the land around the building. The
unauthorised hard-standing on the site at present itself conflicts with openness,
although hardstanding areas such as the one associated with the nearby farm
buildings are not uncommon in rural areas. However, the parking of cars that would
inevitably be required to access such a remote site would also cause significant harm
to the openness….Even if outside working and storage were prohibited, the inevitable
activities including car parking outside the buildings if all nine units were in use,
together with the comings and goings of employees and delivery vehicles, would
cause significant harm to openness by comparison to an agricultural use of the
building….. The building also provides over 500 sq m of floorspace and as such
significantly exceeds the 300 sq m limit specified in Policy GB8.”
4.
Two applications for the use of individual units within the Nissen hut were refused on
the grounds that the proposals would lead to an increase in vehicular activity on a long
stretch of road of substandard width and which is also a bridleway, and at the junction
of Sturt Green and Ascot Road, that would adversely impact on the safety of the users
of the bridleway and the junction with Ascot Road. However, appeals against the
refusals were allowed with the Inspector stating:
“Whilst (the single lane track) could lead to conflict between road users and other
users of the bridleway beyond, it seems to me that for the relatively small numbers of
vehicle movements likely to be associated with the proposed businesses, this
problem could be resolved by the construction of a passing bay…even without the
proposed businesses the road would continue to serve the farm and other properties
in the area and the potential for conflict would remain.”
The Proposal
5.
The application submitted seeks permission for a change of use of 70 square metres of
the Nissen hut on the site to use for an embroidery business and the use is
retrospective. A second application seeking permission for the change of use of
another 70 square metre section of the building for use by an audio-visual rental
business has also been submitted and is being considered under application 07/00236.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
The main planning issues to consider on the application are the impact of the proposed
change of use on the Green Belt and the impact on highway safety. As two recent
applications have been allowed on appeal for the change of use of a total of 110 sq m
of the Nissen hut the cumulative impact of the existing approved uses and the uses
proposed by both this application and application 07/00236 should be considered in
assessing the acceptability of the proposals.
7.
Policy GB1 of the Local Plan details that the change of use of buildings in accordance
with Policy GB8 can be considered as appropriate development within the Green Belt.
PVWRCM
39
Policy GB8 contains several criteria which should be met for the change of use of
buildings to be permitted. These include that the use proposed, including any external
activities, should not have a materially greater impact than the present or last use on
the openness of the Green Belt; that the change of use to business and industrial uses
within any individual agricultural complex of more than 300 sq m of floor space will not
be permitted; that the building should be of permanent construction and in sound
condition; that the provision of access and parking complies with the adopted standards
of the Council and would not adversely affect highway safety; and that there is no
conflict with Policy GB2 of the Local Plan.
8.
The building is of permanent construction and of sound condition. Furthermore, the
current lawful use of the buildings on the site is for agriculture with the exception of 110
sq m of the Nissen hut which were granted approval for use for dog grooming and
screen printing. The use proposed, combined with the existing lawful uses and that
proposed under application 07/00236, would, if approved, result in a total of 250 sq m
of the Nissen hut being used for non-agricultural purposes. As such, in principle, the
change of use is acceptable provided that the use: would not result in a materially
greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the previous or last use; that the
access and parking provision is acceptable; and would not conflict with Policy GB2 of
the Local Plan.
9.
In determining the previous appeals against the refusal of permission for the use for a
screen printing business and a dog grooming business the Inspector stated that “It
seems to me that, although the proposed uses are likely to create some additional
traffic on Sturt Green, the number of trips would be quite low and the nature and size of
the proposed businesses would not attract particularly large vehicles.”. Subject to the
inclusion of conditions, requiring a passing bay to be provided within the single lane
section of Sturt Green and restricting the uses authorised, the applications were
considered to be acceptable in terms of the impacts on highway safety and the impact
on the Green Belt.
10.
Details submitted with the application indicate that the use generates some five or six
movements per day with the majority being smaller vehicles although the occasional
HGV is used by suppliers. However, from discussions on site with one of the
employees there are five people who work in the unit who arrive in the morning and
leave in the afternoon/evening and that a few customers will visit each day and that a
courier van will visit the site every 2 to 3 days and that larger vehicles are required at
most once a month. The employee also indicated that the use subject to application
07/00236 is carried out by two people who do not visit the site every day and who have
few deliveries. This accords with the observations of both the Planning Officer and the
Principal Enforcement Officer who have visited the site several times over the past
year.
11.
Whilst the use results in some parking outside the unit it is considered that the level of
parking for the existing and proposed uses would not result in any material impact on
the openness of the Green Belt over the use for agriculture. There has been previous
enforcement issues relating to the hard standing on the site. However, regardless of the
outcome of the issues relating to the existing hard standing there is sufficient space
within the site to accommodate parking for the uses proposed.
12.
Overall, the combined impact of the use proposed, taken together with the existing
lawful uses and the use the subject of application 07/00236, is not considered to result
in a material greater impact on the Green Belt than the agricultural use of the buildings.
Furthermore, no objection has been raised by the Highway Authority subject to the
provision of a passing bay on the single lane section of Sturt Green. As such the
proposed change of use is considered to comply with Policies GB1, GB2, GB8, T5 and
R14 of the Local Plan.
Other Material Considerations
PVWRCM
40
13.
At present it appears that the existing barn building on the site, together with some of
the adjoining buildings, may be being used for the storage of marquees. If such a use is
taking place it would take the total floor space used for non-agricultural purposes to
over 300 sq m and as such would conflict with Policy GB8 of the Local Plan. The
applicant’s agent has indicated that the building is used for storing marquees in
connection with the applicant’s polo business. However, it is likely that permission is
required for this use and further investigations are being undertaken. This is a matter
for effective enforcement and is not considered to be determinant on the outcome of
the current application.
Conclusion
14.
Overall it is considered that the proposed use is a relatively low key operation and the
impact of the proposed use when combined with existing lawful uses on the site and
other proposed uses would not result in any conflict with the policies of the
Development Plan as detailed above. However, as the use of the unit for alternative
purposes could result in higher levels of traffic and greater levels of outside activities,
such as parking, it is considered that any permission should include a condition to
restrict the use of the unit as was the case on the recent applications allowed on appeal
(as was the case on the recent applications allowed on appeal).
Recommendation:
That permission is granted subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
PVWRCM
Within three months of the date of this approval, details of a passing bay to be
created in Sturt Green shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The passing bay shall thereafter be constructed within six months
of the date of approval and in accordance with the approved details and shall be
permanently retained and maintained free from obstruction.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5 and
R14.
The use hereby permitted shall be limited to the use for an embroidery business.
Reason: The nature of the use is considered to be acceptable in relation to the impact
on highway safety and the openness of the Green Belt. However, alternative uses
may adversely impact on highway safety and the openness of the Green Belt.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB1, GB2, GB8 and T5; Structure Plan DP3.
41
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Parish/Ward:
Parish Council
07/00246/TEMP
Temporary
Proposal:
Temporary consent for the siting of two modular buildings
Location:
Longridge Quarry Wood Road Marlow SL7 1RE
Applicant:
Trustees Of Longridge Boating Centre
Agent:
Compton Lacey
Date Received:
30th January 2007
Case Officer:
William Smith
Recommendation:
PERM
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward:
Parish Council
07/00293/TEMP
Temporary
Bisham Agenda No. 7
Bisham Agenda No. 8
Location:
Temporary siting of two caravans for storage purposes
(RETROSPECTIVE)
Longridge Quarry Wood Road Marlow SL7 1RE
Applicant:
Trustees Of Longridge Boating Centre
Agent:
Compton Lacey
Date Received:
5th February 2007
Case Officer:
William Smith
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt
High Risk Floodplain
Wildlife Heritage Site
Setting of the Thames
Area of Landscape Importance
Sustainable Development Implications:
Continued use of river-based recreation
facility
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, F1, N9, N2, N1, R8, R10, R13
Structure Plan – DP3, EN1, EN3, EN6, S4
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Nothing
recent
(since 1997).
3.
The Highway Authority
Not consulted on the applications – no change to the use of the land, nor significant
intensification of activity there.
PVWRCM
42
4.
Environment Agency
(07/00246; 00293)
Objects to both proposals because no Flood Risk Assessment [FRA] has been
presented with and in support of the applications.
There have been a number of exchanges with Officers of the EA, and they remain
currently of the view that the modular buildings on the site, and the caravans in
particular, need to be lifted up to at least 300mm above the 1% annual probability
flood level for the site, and that they need to be tethered in some way to prevent them
from becoming actually mobile [floating away] during a serious flood event. If the
notified flood level is 27.7m AOD[N], and the ground level typically in the vicinity of
the caravans is 26.3, than they would need to be raised by 1.7m above their existing
level to comply with the EA’s advice.
The EA has also been involved in discussions with the Longridge Trust and their
architect [the agent for these applications] about the future prospects at Longridge,
and it has been reported that an indication was given that the modular buildings could
be placed on the land at a level that was below the current flood level, and
confirmation has been sought on this.
In terms of PPS25-led procedure, and the Town and Country Planning
(Flooding)(England) Direction 2007, the EA has said that it does not regard the
present proposals for Longridge as ‘major development’, and would not require them
to be referred to the Secretary of State, but would wish to be offered the opportunity
to make further representations if approval is advanced without such protective
measures put forward, as it considers appropriate, and in the continued absence of
the FRA.
5.
Tree Officer
(07/00246)
No objection subject to conditions, and for further clarification on the means of lifting
of the temporary buildings into position, and how soft ground in the vicinity of retained
trees may, or may not be affected by a mobile crane brought in for this purpose.
(07/00293)
Content that the siting of the caravans is outside the crown spread of trees, and that
no footings have had, nor require, to be put in. Frequent use though could cause local
compaction and some form of ground protection may be required locally. Concerned
more that movement to and from the nearby boat-racks and caravans to the river is
through the WHS, and that this could result in degradation to the ecology of the area
where a number of trees have already been felled and cleared.
6.
Babtie (Ecology Advice)
Consulted informally on the potential implications of the scheme that may be brought
forward by the Longridge Trust in the future to improve facilities there. The response
provides useful background information on the designation of the WHS (in 1998), and
the rationale for this. At that time, it was found to contain rough grassland with
Willows along the river edge, and botanically scarce Loddon Lilies were present
throughout the site. Irrespective of this protective designation on the site, a good
number of trees were removed or cut back there about a year ago on health and
safety grounds, apparently.
7.
Wycombe District Council
(07/00246)
PVWRCM
43
Considers that if RBWM minded to grant permission for the modular buildings, it
should make plain to the applicant the very special circumstances necessary to allow
permission for buildings in the Green Belt with regard to their impact on its character
and openness. And that any modular buildings should be replaced in the near future
by suitably designed, permanent buildings, and that no extension of an initial
temporary permission should be allowed.
(07/00293)
No objection.
Note: these representations do not acknowledge the long-standing use of the site as
a water-based recreational centre. Recreational activities, and essential buildings to
support them, can be regarded as legitimate and acceptable uses in the Green Belt.
8.
Parish Council
(07/00246)
No objection to the modular buildings provided they are removed after a 3-year
period, or earlier if their intended use ceases.
(07/00293)
Objects to the caravans which it considers to be unsightly in a rural area and detract
from Longridge.
9.
Neighbour Notification Responses
(07/00246)
2 email despatches, with one expressing no objection to the proposal subject
clarification of what ‘temporary’ means [provided].
to
(Marlow Society)
As ‘3’ below, and noting support for the temporary buildings within the central part of
the site subject to compliance with EA requirements, and government guidance on
Development and Flood Risk [PPS25].
(07/00293)
1 letter and 1 email received, of which the latter is written on behalf of Marlow Society
members in Bisham Parish, commenting as follows:
1. Too much going at Longridge to permit any more buildings there, temporary or
otherwise.
2. Presence of damaged caravans makes the site look like a scrap yard.
(Marlow Society)
3. Supportive of Longridge as a safe and accessible watersports facility for young
people.
4. Site subject to ASLI/Setting of the Thames designations and location of caravans
is close to the road passing the site, and they are visible from Bisham Woods (an
SSSI). Other locations would not have such a detrimental impact on the river
setting and local landscape views.
PVWRCM
44
5. Users of this part of Longridge should be able to access facilities located within
the central part of the site, which is less environmentally sensitive.
6. Caravans adjacent to the WHS - Policy N9 requires measures to safeguard and
enhance these, and none such have been brought forward in this case.
7. Location more at risk of flooding than central site complex, and [there would be]
no means of accessing the caravans without recourse to a raised path and which
would constitute an impediment to the flow of floodwater.
REMARKS
The Site and Surrounding Area
1.
These applications relate to different parts of the Longridge Centre which is located
towards the eastern end of Quarry Wood Road in Bisham (Marlow).
2.
The Centre has been operated as a water-based recreation centre since the 1950’s
by the Scout Association, which has with recent effect disposed of its interest in the
site. A local trust has been set up and its declared mission is to bring forward a
scheme to replace the majority of the present buildings on the site by way of creating
‘a premier, year-round, water sports and activity centre for young people of all
backgrounds and abilities, providing training and leadership for all’.
3.
The entirety of the site lies within the Green Belt and the operational floodplain of the
River Thames. It is also within the Local Plan-designated Setting of the Thames and
the Area of Special Landscape Importance. The north-eastern corner of the site is
also designated as a Wildlife Heritage Site [WHS].
The Proposal
4.
These applications seek 3-year temporary consents, firstly, for the retention of 2
caravans for use as storage space in conjunction with rowing use by the Borlase
School Rowing Club, which has recently been required to vacate its previous base at
Marlow Rowing Club adjacent to the Thames Bridge at Marlow (00293). The second
proposal relates to the placing on the site of two additional modular-type buildings
within the central complex at Longridge to provide additional toilet and other ancillary
facilities for a transitional period (00246).
5.
The Design and Access Statement for the second application provides fuller detail of
the need for the modular buildings. These are needed to provide segregated toilet
and changing facilities for adult and younger users of Longridge, especially for those
periods of most intense use in the Summer months. There is an additional need also
for additional office space for administrative staff based at the site, and for activity
instructors. The extra WC accommodation would obviate the need to bring in
temporary loos during the busiest periods of activity at Longridge. One of the modular
buildings is already on the site, alongside the overflow parking area and between it
and the location of the 2 caravans.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
PVWRCM
Mindful of the length of time that Longridge has been established on its present site as
a river-based recreational activity centre, the key issues that need to be considered
are whether, and for the temporary period required, the additional building and storage
facilities proposed would have a detrimental impact on the Green Belt, on the
floodplain, and on existing trees [and their root protection zones] within the site, of
which a number both border and are located within the designated WHS. The fact of
location of Longridge within the Setting of the Thames and the Area of Landscape
Importance is also material. Each of these is considered in turn below.
45
1) Development in the Green Belt
7.
Policy GB1 of the Local Plan defines what are considered to be acceptable uses in
the Green Belt, and ‘essential facilities for sport and recreation’ are included as such.
Buildings to support such activities can also be regarded as appropriate development,
that is provided they do not conflict with the purpose of Green Belt designation, nor
impinge upon its essential openness. Policy GB2 sets out a range of tests for new
development in the Green Belt which focus on preserving openness, and preventing
harm to the character of the countryside by, for example, poor siting/design/materials
and increases in activity levels on a site for its approved purpose.
8.
The two additional modular buildings are proposed to be located within the central
complex of permanent and temporary buildings and other structures present at
Longridge, and they would be relatively well concealed within the wider immediate
context of the centre as a consequence. Both would be set at a height that is lower
than any immediately-adjacent building. The larger unit [7 modules], to provide the
segregated toilet/shower and changing facilities would be located alongside the
present Wethered building towards the W end of the central complex. There is already
a fixed marquee on this part of the site [fitted out with cooking/washing-up facilities
and tables and chairs], and this would be taken down and/or relocated. The smaller,
4-module building, shown to be fitted out for office/meeting room and reception use
would be situated at the opposite E end of the present main building at Longridge and
visible directly through the main parking areas between it and the main road entrance
to the centre. The caravans may not be regarded as the most attractive of additions to
the site, where most of the buildings may be described as utilitarian in character, but
the introduction of some screening along their open side[s] may assist in reducing
their visual impact, if not by means of an exterior coat of paint of a suitable ‘toning
down’ colour.
9.
In combination, the presence of both buildings is not considered to result in a
significant spread of development across and within the Longridge site such that its
intrinsic openness would be compromised. There is merit too in permitting the
provision of additional changing and related facilities for the reason that has been put
forward. If there is to be any likelihood that either or both buildings were required for a
longer period, then a fresh application would have to be presented to enable that in
2010. This will be dependent to a significant extent on progress in the interim on
bringing forward the longer-term vision for Longridge as a water activity-based
recreational centre.
2) Development in the Thames floodplain
10.
The response of the EA to the prospect of these additional buildings at Longridge is
reported above. The Agency has pressed for a Flood Risk Assessment to be
undertaken by way of fixing the parameters for their erection on site so that any
flooding consequences that they may give rise too on, or off-site elsewhere, can be
minimised. The presence of new buildings could impede flood flow, reduce the
capacity for floodwater storage on the site, which, without any compensation
measures being taken, would require that capacity to be provided elsewhere. If it is
not, then – in the worst case – the degree of flood risk is increased. Policy F1 of the
Local Plan is framed to restrict development that would have adverse consequences
such as this in the floodplain of the River Thames.
11.
The modular buildings are shown on the submitted plans to have an internal finished
floor level of 27.4m AOD[N], that is 300mm below the notified flood level for the site,
without any increment to allow for climate change. There is anecdotal evidence that
the EA has said that it would be content with the modular buildings so erected on the
site, but there is nothing in writing to verify this reportedly offered opinion. In ‘risk’
terms, the fact of their intended retention on site for a limited period only may be
PVWRCM
46
regarded as constituting a lesser likelihood that the worst consequences of a serious
flood affecting the site would arise. And, in this sense, the development may be
considered acceptable.
12.
As to the two caravans already present on the land, there is a good possibility that
they would not prevent the ingress of water were they to be affected by water of
sufficient over-threshold depth in the more southerly fringes of the site. And some
form of tethering could be provided, by weighting or physical restraint, such that any
risk of their floating away could be thus minimised.
3) Impact on trees and the WHS
13.
Again, the observations of the Tree Officer are reported in summary form above.
There is no objection to the modular buildings proposal, subject to being satisfied that
soft ground around nearby trees to be retained would not be damaged by the craning
of these buildings into their proposed locations. The applicant’s agent has offered to
provide a Construction and Method Statement which would set out how this operation
would take place and any issues of conflict with trees and their RPA’s addressed.
14.
The Tree Officer remains concerned about the rowing activity related to the caravans
and boat racks in the SE corner of the site. This is an established activity at
Longridge, and the subject of the application is the introduced caravans alone [not the
movable boat-racks]. The particular focus of this concern is the presence, or not, of
pathways constructed – or intended to be so – through the WHS area, and how
movement with boats to and from the landing stage on the riverbank, might result in
further detriment to the ecology of this area. This is difficult to assess as there are no
evident paths beyond the immediate confines of the caravans, that is except for one
which does run to the S of an existing obstacle course feature outside the WHS area.
The foreshore area in this part of Longridge is lower-lying, and clearly more
susceptible to floodwater incursion on a regular basis, and it is very unlikely that
anything like a loose bark path would withstand any weight or volume of water flow
across it.
15.
In order to reduce the risk of further unwitting damage to the WHS, it may be
considered appropriate to require details of the formation of any such paths to be
submitted for agreement, or to require confinement of the movement of boats and
their users to designated routes through the WHS by the formation of a nominallyraised duck-board route, say, and which would be so sited as to avoid any damage to
still-existing trees between the racks/caravans and the riverbank.
Conclusion
16.
These application relate to the provision of additional temporary buildings within the
present Longridge centre to facilitate improved operations there for an interim period
whilst all-embracing plans to secure the long-term future of the site in accordance with
stated aims of the trust that has taken it on.
(iv)
Notwithstanding the expressed concerns of the EA and the Council’s Tree Officer, it
is considered that permissions for the limited period duration sought are justified for
this reason. Such permissions would need to be re-applied for if there is any desire to
retain the modular buildings and caravans for any longer timescale.
The EA will be advised of the tenor of this report, and the recommendation it is
putting forward, in the period prior to the Panel meeting, and any views forthcoming
passed on to Members for their consideration.
(v)
Recommendation:
PVWRCM
That 3-year temporary permissions be
granted for the modular buildings (00246),
and for retention of the 2 caravans as
proposed (00293).
47
Conditions and Reasons
07/00246
^CR;;
1
The modular buildings hereby permitted shall be discontinued, all associated
structures removed in their totality from the site and the land restored to its former
condition on or before 10th April 2010 in accordance with a scheme of work which
has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The proposal does not constitute a form of development that the Local
Planning Authority would normally permit. However, in view of the particular
circumstances of this application temporary planning permission is granted. Relevant
Policies - Local Plan GB1, GB2, F1; Structure Plan DP3, EN6.
2
Details of underground service and drain runs to be submitted and agreed with the
Tree Officer.
3
Construction and Method Statement to be submitted and agreed with the Tree
Officer.
4
C46 Existing trees to be retained
5
Any conditions that may be required by the EA.
07/00293
1
2
3
4
PVWRCM
The two storage caravans hereby permitted shall be discontinued, all associated
structures removed in their totality from the site and the land restored to its former
condition on or before in accordance with a scheme of work which has been first
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: The proposal does not constitute a form of development that the Local
Planning Authority would normally permit. However, in view of the particular
circumstances of this application temporary planning permission is granted. Relevant
Policies - Local Plan GB1, GB2, F1, Structure Plan DP3 EN6.
Details of open-side fence screening and painting of caravans to be submitted and
agreed.
Details to be submitted and agreed of a route for and means of construction of a
raised accessway to be provided between the caravans and boat rack area and the
riverside; or - at least - such a route to be marked in some way and kept to by the
users of this part of Longridge.
Any conditions required by the EA.
48
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward:
Ward
07/00254/FULL
Full
Reference No:
Proposal:
Belmont Agenda No. 9
Location:
Change of use of rear store from A1 (retail) to A5 (hot food
takeaway). Partial in-filling of covered yard to form additional
retail. Construction of bin store, repositioning of vehicular
access, new external staircase and chimney for kitchen
extract
Norfolk Park Post Office 42 Vicarage Road Maidenhead SL6 7DS
Applicant:
Mr Patel
Agent:
Ashley Fox Associates
Date Received:
29th January 2007
Case Officer:
Sheila Bowen
Recommendation:
REF
Planning Context:
Excluded settlement
Sustainable Development Implications:
Neutral
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – S7, DG1, T5, P4
Structure Plan – DP5
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
06/02465
3.
As now proposed, but including a first Withdrawn
floor rear extension
27.11.2006
The Highway Authority
Gates would open onto the highway. Vicarage Road suffers with heavy on-street
parking during the day and especially during the evening and weekend periods. The
Highway Authority is concerned that the proposal would not only increase the level of
vehicular activity in the area, but would introduce indiscriminate parking by
customers. The HA questions the applicant’s view that the proposal would not
generate any additional vehicle movements to the area. Recommends refusal.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
26 letters and e-mails of objection have been received. Points made are summarised
as follows:
- Customers and delivery lorries to the existing shop already cause parking problems
- A takeaway here would exacerbate these problems
- The takeaway would cause smells affecting a large number of houses
- Increased litter and vermin
- Increased foot and vehicular traffic
- General nuisance to the area
- Parking is impossible
PVWRCM
49
- The extractor fan will be very close to the neighbouring garden, bringing cooking
smells
- A takeaway is inappropriate in a residential area
- Emergency vehicles have trouble accessing the area because of unsafe parking
- If there is a home delivery service this will increase the traffic even more
- Decrease in highway safety, the dropped kerb is already frequently blocked
- Even with filtration systems, cooking smells will still get through
- The extraction system will be noisy
- No one wants it
- Misleading estimate of traffic generation on application forms
- There are already 50 + cars a day using the stores
- The roads are already full up at night with residents parking
- Neither beneficial nor appropriate
- Does not meet the needs of the local and wider community
- Would result in the loss of the Post Office
- The personal safety of residents in the surrounding streets would be jeopardised
- The establishment would serve alcohol, and there have been 1402 alcohol related
crimes in the Windsor and Maidenhead area
- The likely devaluation of properties in the area
- The large chimney would be a visual monstrosity and would cause air pollution that
would put the physical health of people at risk
- There are 120 Indian takeaways within a 10 mile radius of Maidenhead, so this is
surplus to requirements
- Would attract crowds of the wrong sort of people
- Potential risk of damage to cars/properties
- Loss of quality of life and peace
- Would ruin the character of the street
- There are a lot of elderly living in the area who would be disturbed
- Will lead to late evening disturbance
3 letters and e-mails of support has been received, making the following points:
- Would be a useful addition to the area
- The nearest outlet of this kind is in the town centre
- Concerns about traffic movements are unfounded
- Would not attract undesirables
- Was not misled into signing the petition in favour of it
- The decision should be based on factual evidence and not on rumour and hearsay
- The owners will not tolerate drunk or antisocial behaviour
- Would help support the existing business
- Would cater for more of the community’s wants and needs
5.
Environmental Protection Officer
Conditions suggested to overcome noise and odour problems
REMARKS
1.
Councillor Dr Bruton has requested that the application be referred to Panel for
determination.
The Site and Surroundings
2.
PVWRCM
The site lies at the corner of Vicarage Road and Risborough Road, near the junction
with Norfolk Road, in the northern part of Maidenhead. It is a storage building to the
rear of a long established general store/mini supermarket and post office, adjacent an
Italian speciality foodstore.
50
The Proposal
3.
The proposal is the change of use of the rear storeroom from A1 (Retail) to A5 (Hot
food takeaway). In addition there would be alterations to the building with a partial
infilling of the covered yard to form additional retail space for the store, the
construction of a bin store, the repositioning of the vehicular access, a new external
staircase for access to the flat above the shop, and the erection of a chimney for a
kitchen extract flue.
4.
The applicant has stated that he is finding it extremely difficult to maintain an
acceptable level of income because of competition. Consequently the proposal is to
extend facilities to include a separate and segregated hot food takeaway business, to
be run by the applicant’s wife, who will be preparing Punjabi takeaway meals. These
would be taken by clients to their homes for consumption, and would not be of the
type to be eaten in the street. They anticipate that most clients will live locally, so
there would not be a significant increase in vehicular movements. The existing
access doors to the rear yard will remain the same, and will serve the additional
deliveries to serve the takeaway.
5.
The shop will be modified to make it more flexible, and the sub-post office will remain.
A purpose built enclosure for bins will be created.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
The principal planning issues relate to the impact on the residential amenities of
neighbouring residents, and on the character and appearance of the area, and the
impact on highway safety.
7.
It is considered that in appearance terms, the takeaway would be discretely
positioned behind the existing walls, and set back from the road, while the chimney
extract would be designed to appear like a chimney to harmonise with the building.
The glass-fronted premises would be visible through an opening in the wall, but given
its position between two shops, it would be an appropriate building in this location. All
the other changes are at ground floor level within the yard area, and would not have
any adverse impact on any neighbouring dwellings.
8.
The proposed use would increase traffic to the site, both pedestrian and vehicular,
and particularly during the evening hours. This is a predominantly residential area of
high density, so a large number of people live within close proximity of the site. It is
considered that this intensification of use of the site would have an adverse impact on
the residential amenities of the neighbours, in terms of noise and disturbance, and
this is contrary to the provisions of Policy S7 of the Local Plan concerning local
shops.
9.
The Public Protection Unit has commented that any permission should be conditioned
to prevent the use of the premises in the evening, because of the disturbance
mentioned above. However, it is not considered that such a condition would be
reasonable given the nature of the proposed use which, in all probability, would rely
upon evening trade.
10.
The Public Protection Unit has also commented on the issue of cooking smells that
neighbours fear will emanate from the premises. It is of the opinion that with correct
filtration systems in the extractor unit, there should be no nuisance caused to
neighbours in terms of smells from cooking.
11.
The area already suffers a serious lack of parking spaces, and any further increase in
demand for parking spaces would lead to an intolerable situation for local residents.
The proposal does not include any parking spaces for patrons, so this would increase
PVWRCM
51
parking stress in the locality and would increase the likelihood of indiscriminate
parking. Consequently the Highway Authority has objected to the proposal and
recommends refusal of permission on parking and highway grounds. However, it is
noted that the gates already exist and consequently no objection can be raised to
their outward opening as part of this application. The applicant’s view that the
development would not generate additional traffic is not considered to be realistic.
Other Material Considerations
12.
Local residents have raised many objections to the proposal in terms of inappropriate
use, and the attraction of undesirables to the area, in addition to the problems of
parking and noise and disturbance. There is no reason to suppose that the proposed
use would attract drunks or criminals, as alleged, as the business would sell food
products for home consumption.
13.
Although no financial or other evidence has been advanced by the applicant in
support of this part of his case, the Panel should consider the possibility raised that
the current business and post office on the site may no longer be viable if the new
venture were not permitted, with a consequent potential loss of an important facility in
the area. However, your Officers consider that this view should be given limited
weight in the absence of compelling supporting evidence.
Conclusion
14.
It is considered that the proposal would not be an appropriate use for this residential
area and that the resulting highway, parking and general disturbance could not be
overcome by the imposition of reasonable conditions.
Recommendation:
Refuse planning permission for the following
reasons:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
PVWRCM
The surrounding area already suffers from a very high demand for on-street parking.
The proposed development cannot provide dedicated parking provision for its
customers and as such would worsen the existing parking difficulties in the area and
result in indiscriminate parking on Vicarage Road and other local streets which would
adversely affect highway safety and convenience and the free flow of traffic. The
proposal is contrary to Policy P4 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Local Plan 1999 (Incorporating Alterations Adopted June 2003).
The proposed use would have an adverse effect on the quiet residential character of
the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents as a result of disturbance from
increased vehicular movements and parking activity, particularly in evening hours.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S7 and NAP3 of the Local Plan.
52
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
07/00257/OUT
Proposal:
Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward
Outline
Agenda No. 10
Location:
Outline application for the construction of a four storey
building comprising approximately 2,660 sq metres B1
(office) with revised access from Bridge Avenue (Option A)
3 - 6 Bridge Avenue Maidenhead SL6 1RR
Applicant:
Silverstone
Agent:
Not applicable
Date Received:
30th January 2007
Case Officer:
Peter Carey
Recommendation:
DLA
Date of Meeting:
Reference No.:
Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Agent:
Date Received:
Case Officer:
Recommendation:
Parish/Ward: Oldfield Agenda No.11
Ward
Outline
07/00258
Outline application for the construction of a four storey building
comprising approximately 2,660 Sq metres B1 (office) with
revised access from Bridge Avenue (Option B)
3 - 6 Bridge Avenue Maidenhead SL6 1RR
Silverstone
11th April 2007
29th January 2007
Peter Carey
Defer Legal Agreement
Planning Context:
Excluded settlement Maidenhead Town
Centre Commercial Area
Area Liable to Flood
Sustainable Development Implications:
More efficient use of urban land, low
carbon footprint, sustainable town centre
location
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, E8, E9, E10, IMP1, P4, R9, R11, T6, T7
Structure Plan – DP1, DP2, DP4, DP5, EN3, EN5, EN6, EN7, EN8, E1, T1
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
03/41153/FULL
04/01054/FULL
04/41748/FULL
3.
PVWRCM
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 14 x 1 bed and
24 x 2 bed retirement apartments and ancillary accommodation on
4 floors.
R 05.02.2004
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 25 x 2 bed and
13 x 1 bed retirement apartments and ancillary accommodation on
4 floors. Appeal Dismissed 15.06.2005
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 27 x 2 bed and
12 x 1 bed retirement apartments and ancillary accommodation on
4 floors. Appeal Dismissed 15.06.2005
The Highway Authority
53
Any comments will be reported in Late Observations
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
11 local addresses consulted. There was one reply from the occupier of 32 Forlease
Road. Concerns raised include the impact of the height of the scheme on the
streetscene, loss of privacy , and daylight and sunlight for Forlease Road residents.
The Maidenhead Civic Society objects to the scale of the proposal, which it says is
out of character with this, residential scale side of the road. Reversion to residential
use should be encouraged for the east side of \Bridge Avenue.
SUSTRANS looks to apportioning S106 contributions associated with the proposal to
expanding cycle network serving the town centre.
5.
Environmental Protection Unit
There are potentially contaminated landsites within 250m radius. Also the site sits
right at the edge of the Maidenhead AQMA. As proposal is for B1 use there may be
some road traffic issue with potential further decline of air quality in the area.
Condition supplied
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
1.
This 0.15 Ha site on the east side of Bridge Avenue is currently occupied by four selfcontained office buildings originally constructed as private houses in the early 1930’s
and variously extended and converted to office use between 1978 and 1990.
The Proposal
2.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and construct a four-storey building
to provide some 2,557 square metres of B1 offices, with surface and undercroft
parking for 24 cars, 2 motorcycles and 14 bicycles. This represents an increase of
about 1,857 square metres office floorspace. The principal space planning features
are:
-
Plant accommodated in a half-storey behind the ground floor instead of within
the roof, leaving the roof clear of any visually intrusive projections;
Ground floor elevated by approximately 1.2 metres to accord with
Environment Agency advice;
Undercroft parking uses the low-level void beneath the mezzanine plant area.
Detailed Flood Risk Assessment, Employment Impact and Access & Design Statement
documentation accompany the applications. Two alternative external design options are
covered by these applications. These are fully described in the accompanying Design and
Access Statements. The differences are in fenestration details and finishing materials.
4.
Option A (07/00257) would use natural terracotta panels, cedar wood screens, clear
solar protective glazing and traditional copper cladding: – the west facing ground floor
would be early all glass, in order to gain light; the first and second floors would be
mainly glass, with terracotta cladding panels with some timber screens, and the
recessed third floor clad in copper panels on the north and south elevations with clear
glazing to the east and west.
5.
Option B (07/00258) has a different, more regular glazing pattern and uses natural
cedar wood cladding with vertical copper panels at first and second floor.
PVWRCM
54
6.
In both the top floor is intended to appear as a transparent pavilion, with the glazed
parts of the front and rear elevations intended to partially reflect a view of the trees to
be planted along the street frontage and rear boundary. A “brown roof” (naturalistic
surface) would provide new wildlife habitat close to the centre of Maidenhead. Public
art could be incorporated into the building or landscape so as to be visible from
Bridge Street.
Planning Issues
7.
The main issues for consideration are:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Principle of development
Impact on character and appearance of the area and neighbours
Access, highway safety and parking
Contributions towards associated infrastructure required in connection with the
development
Principle of development
8.
The application site is located within the Maidenhead Town Centre where Local Plan
Policy E1 allows development for business use (including offices). Policies DP1 and
E1 of the recently adopted Structure Plan identify the main town centres as the
principal location for major office development, i.e. where the net increase in
floorspace would exceed 2500 sq. metres. The current application proposes an
increase in office floorspace of 1,857 sq. metres, bringing the total to some 2557 sq.
metres. This is not major development as defined by the structure plan and it must
therefore be acceptable in principle in the context of SP Policy E1, subject to the
qualifications regarding accessibility. The Structure Plan is a recent document largely
up to date with Government guidance and as part of the adopted development plan,
carries substantial weight. For this reason, it is considered that the 300 sq. metre
restriction on new offices in the town centre (Local Plan Policies E8 and E9) is no
longer supportable.
9.
The conclusions of an Employment Land Review, commissioned by the Council in
support of its Local Development Framework and recently endorsed as a basis for
planning decisions at the March 2006 Cabinet, are material to consideration of the
application. The Review identified a need for some growth in office provision in
accessible areas, with demand for office-based jobs forecast to increase by 3,333
between 2004 and 2026.
10.
The site is close to bus routes and within reasonable walking distance of Maidenhead
railway station (just under 700 metres). In order to improve its accessibility by means
other than the private car, the occupiers will be expected to submit a travel plan
demonstrating how reliance on the private car will be progressively reduced. This will
be assisted by the S106 contribution towards the provision of public transport and
cycling infrastructure in the local area. In view of these considerations, it is
considered that the requirements of SP Policy E1 and Local Plan Policy E1 and E3
are met and it is accepted that, in employment terms, the scale of the development is
appropriate for this location.
Impact on character and appearance of the area and neighbours
11.
PVWRCM
Buildings in the vicinity have a variety of styles reflecting the gradual evolution of the
area, with significant and continuing changes since the 1980s. In this context there is
no reason to object to the proposal’s contemporary styling, which would not be
inappropriate in the context of other development existing and recently approved on
adjacent and nearby sites including the two substantial office blocks at Mallards
Reach and Lyondell House opposite the application site.
The Inspector who
dismissed the appeal against refusal of planning permission for flats on a larger site
(3-9 Bridge Avenue, application 04/01054/FULL) stated: "The proposed building in
55
Appeal (A) would be four storeys high rising to a maximum of about 16.4m. Although
this would be substantially higher than other development on this side of Bridge
Avenue, it would be almost identical to the height of Mallards Reach on the opposite
side of the road. In these circumstances, I do not consider that there can be any
substantial objection purely in terms of the height of the proposed development" He
noted that the character of Bridge Avenue was changing and that an increase in
density was both inevitable and desirable. He accepted that a building on the east
side of comparable height to those on the west would not damage the character and
quality of the area. However, he concluded that the bulk and length (71 metres) of
the appealed proposal on the Bridge Avenue frontage, coupled with its closeness to
the back of the footway (1.0 – 1.5 metres) and the limited opportunities for
landscaping would have damaged the character of the area in conflict with Policy
DG1. As the present proposal is on a smaller site, it is much shorter (at 37.4 metres)
than the appealed scheme and set back from the road sufficiently to enable
appropriate landscaping to be included. Being of comparable height to the buildings
on the west side and with the landscaped set-back from the road, it could as intended
complement them as landmark features on the street scene, and subject to approval
of detailed landscaping through conditions, it could have a positive impact on the
street scene.
12.
The building would be the tallest on the east side of Bridge Avenue. The nearest
residential occupiers are at the rear of the site in Forlease Road. Given the distance
(not less than 32 metres between buildings) it is not considered that direct
overlooking would lead to a degree of loss of privacy as would justify refusal of
planning permission, and despite the increase in height of the building, it would more
than meet the Building Research Establishment's recommendation that where a 25
vertical angle, taken from a point 2 metres above the floor of the fenestrated elevation
is kept unobstructed, adequate daylighting would be maintained. The building would,
however, be a dominant feature viewed from Forlease Road residences, materially
different in outlook from what is currently enjoyed. This Council does not have any
formal standards for assessing outlook, as it is a matter of some subjectivity and one
that will have different application according to the characteristics of individual sites
and areas. The applicant has drawn attention to Woking Borough Council’s
Supplementary Guidance which states that "outlook from a principal window may
become adversely affected when the height of any facing structure exceeds its
separation distance from the window". In this case as the overall building height is
16.3 metres, the separation distance at least 32 metres would be almost double that
Council’s acceptable minimum. Notwithstanding this, in the appeal decision on
application 04/01054 (which was for a four-storey apartment building of the same
height as the current proposal, but with an unbroken built frontage of 71 metres and
13.5 metre high rear wing sited 21.5 metres from the nearest house), although the
Council had objected to the impact of the rear wing as overbearing and intrusive in
relation to the amenity of Forlease Road residents, the Inspector did not agree,
saying that the "impact in this case would not be so great in itself to justify dismissing
the appeal" Accordingly, given that the impact on the houses of the larger and nearer
apartment block scheme was deemed acceptable, the greater separation of the
houses and proposed buildings, together with the benefit of tree screening on the
boundary and the set back, in the amended plans of the third floor, would not, in the
circumstances be regarded as a supportable reason for refusal of planning
permission.
Flood Risk
13.
PVWRCM
The Flood Risk Assessment accompanying the application note that the site currently
lies within Flood Zone 3a as defined by Table D1 of PPS25. It concludes that the
immediate flood risk to the development and to others will be mitigated by minimising
the occupied ground floor area. Undercroft parking will be provided under part of the
development and the occupied ground floor areas will be constructed in excess of
600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level. There will be no increase in flood risk to
others as the proposed building’s footprint will occupy an area only marginally larger
56
than the existing buildings on site, as permitted under Royal Borough of Windsor and
Maidenhead’s (RBWM) Planning Policy F1. Therefore, there will be no significant net
construction within the floodplain. Following the full operational instatement of the
Jubilee River, complete dry access to and from the site should be possible. As the
development is in a developed area, it will also be covered by the EA flood warning
scheme and emergency plans prepared and co-ordinated by the local authority. It is
considered that the development meets the criteria set out in PPS25 for appropriate
development in the floodplain.
Access, highway safety and parking
14.
Two-way vehicular access and a footway are accommodated along the northern
boundary Road. As Bridge Avenue is a one-way street, access and egress will be
restricted to a right turn only. The development will have a positive impact on vehicle
movement in the area by reducing the number of access points on Bridge Avenue
and the number of vehicles currently parking on site. A total of 22 standard and 2
disabled parking spaces are proposed. This is in line with the maximum allowed
under the Council’s Parking Standards for areas accessible by public transport.
Charging points for hybrid/electrical cars are provided in the undercroft parking area.
14 cycle racks are proposed; which exceeds the Council’s standards, and 2
motorcycle parking stands are shown, meeting the Council’s standard. Subject,
therefore, to appropriate conditions (including the travel plan for future occupiers) and
a contribution towards sustainable transport initiatives the proposal is considered
acceptable in highway terms.
Contributions towards associated infrastructure
15.
No public open space/recreation/leisure facilities are to be provided on site and
increased pressure on nearby facilities would therefore result from the increased
employment at the site. In accordance with the adopted SPD on developer
contributions towards off-site infrastructure and facilities, there is a requirement to
contribute towards public open space, indoor sports, library facilities, economic
development and, as mentioned above, highways and public transport. The relevant
schemes are: –
Purchase or lease of land for formal recreation, formal sports
provision at Braywick Park or Desborough Park, play/landscape
improvements at Desborough Park
£101,578
Magnet Leisure Centre improvements
£ 28,858
Maidenhead library improvements
£ 1,746
Public transport and cycling infrastructure in vicinity of site
£ 94,447
Economic Development
£ 15,784
TC Management
£ 23,658
Public art
£ 11,829
Subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure these
contributions, the proposal would meet the requirements of Structure Plan Policy DP4
and Local Plan Policies IMP1, R9 and R11.
Other Considerations
16.
PVWRCM
In relation to potential contaminated land, a Stage 1 Environmental Review
undertaken last July concluded that there was a low risk to site users or other
receptors. As a matter of course the applicants propose to undertake an intrusive
survey of the site before commencing any development and will be able to take
precautions during construction if required. The proposed development reduces the
level of parking from 40 to 24 spaces. Given the reduction in car trips to the site it is
anticipated that there would be an improvement in air quality following development
and the applicants propose to deal with this matter in more detail in the travel plan.
57
17.
The applicants propose that the building should be designed to high environmental
standards to be as 'future proof' as is economically viable, particularly in terms of
energy efficiency and carbon emissions. Reducing the energy demand of the
building by passive design and efficient services is, they advise, generally the most
effective way of reducing carbon emissions. The proposed building is designed to
meet or exceed the requirements for energy usage of the New Part L of the Building
Regulations and it is intended that the building will achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘Very
Good’ or better. The Design Statement details all the measures to be taken. They
include energy reflective coatings on windows to minimise heat loss and gain,
reducing the demand for artificial lighting, air conditioning restricted to ‘peak lopping’
at times of extreme temperatures; energy supply from combination of Low or Zero
Carbon (‘LZC’) and renewable sources, including dual fuel biomass boilers,
photovoltaic panels, and ground source heat pumps; water consumption reduced
through rainwater harvesting, dual flush WC cisterns, low water use urinals, water
efficient taps and automatic leak detection.
Conclusion
18.
The principle of an office development of the scale proposed is acceptable, and the
current proposal would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the site
without being materially detrimental to highway safety or the living conditions of
nearby residents. Subject to appropriate conditions and contributions to off-site
infrastructure the proposal is considered acceptable.
Recommendation:
The applications be deferred and authority
delegated to the Head of Planning to:
i) grant planning permission subject to the
prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement
securing the necessary contributions to
community infrastructure provision in the
locality and the following conditions; or
ii) refuse permission if a satisfactory S106
Agreement is not completed by 15:00 hrs on
30 April 2007.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PVWRCM
C01A
C09
C64
C64A
HA38
HA24
EH01
Commencement - full application - 3 year
Samples of materials
Landscaping Scheme
Replacement Planting
Cycle parking as Drawing
Parking as Approved Drawing
Boundary Noise Rating
58
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward: Bray Parish Agenda No.12
Council
07/00339/FULL
Full
Reference No:
Proposal:
Location:
Change of use of land and buildings 1, 2 and 3 from
agriculture to a mixed use comprising DIY livery, horse
breeding, wedding carriage business and parking of horses
for horse transport business
Wingfield Farm Ascot Road Maidenhead SL6 3SY
Applicant:
Mr And Mrs B Wingfield
Agent:
R Perrin MRTPI
Date Received:
1st February 2007
Case Officer:
Sarah Ellison
Recommendation:
DD
Planning Context:
Green Belt
Source Protection Zone
Sustainable Development Implications:
Re use of site
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, GB6, GB8, T5, P4, DG1,
Structure Plan – DP3
2.
PVWRCM
Previous Relevant Decisions
7464/67
Outline application for piggery and Permitted
greenhouse
development
6.10.67
6254/64
Manufacture and storage rustic Refused
furniture and fencing
27.01.65
412615
Retain
horse
boxes;
retain Refused;
garages and workshop; construct appealed
hay barn; retain store building; resite caravan; retain existing walks
and paving
10.03.81
427621
New agricultural building extension
Approved
16.03.94
00/35992
Single storey extension to form Approved
egg washing and grading room
and farm shop
31.10.00
01/36731
Polytunnel for vegetables
Approved
24.05.01
01/37733
Permanent agricultural dwelling
Approved
21.02.02
07/00299
Variation of condition 4 of Refused
01/37733 to vary agricultural
workers dwelling so house can
also be occupied by equestrian
worker
59
01.02.07
3.
The Highway Authority
Comments awaited, to be reported as late observations.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
None received at time of writing report.
5.
Parish Council
Objection – contrary to policies GB2 and GB8 causing greater impact in the Green
Belt and the proposal would constitute a commercial use of the site
REMARKS
Councillor Walters has requested that the application be reported to the
Development Control Panel as it involves contentious, specific and important
planning issues.
The Site and Surroundings
1.
The site comprises a rectangular shaped piece of land, which has historically been
used as a piggery and for egg production. The application is retrospective and the
uses the subject of this application are currently taking place on the site. The site
accesses directly onto Ascot Road and comprises a collection of buildings located
fairly centrally within the width of the plot, with fields to either side. There is also an
agricultural worker’s bungalow on the site. The surrounding area comprises a mixture
of residential properties, agricultural and equestrian enterprises.
The Proposal
2.
The application seeks retrospective permission to use the site for the breeding of
horses; keeping horses on a DIY livery basis; keeping of horses and carriages in
connection with a wedding business and the parking of horseboxes in connection
with a horse transport business.
3.
There are three buildings on the site which are used in connection with the business.
The only other building on the site is the agricultural worker’s dwelling.
4.
Building 1 comprises a modern style barn with overall dimensions of 24m x 16m, with
a block work base and steel sheeting for the sides and roof. The single storey
building at the front and the front half of the building are used in connection with the
wedding carriage business, the small room used as a reception and the front half of
the barn used for the storage of a wedding carriage and cars. The rear half of this
building is used partially for hay and feed storage, and a section of the barn is to be
subdivided to provide parking for horse boxes.
5.
Building 2 comprises a 20m x 9.3m single storey stable building comprising 10 stalls.
This is used for the DIY livery and by the horses used for breeding.
6.
Building 3 comprises a single storey typical stable building measuring 11m x 4m,
comprising 3 stalls. This is located on the western boundary of the site in the
paddock, used by the horses on the site.
PVWRCM
60
Principal Planning Issues
7.
The main issue for consideration as part of this application is the principle of the
development and impact upon the character and appearance of the area and
highway safety.
8.
The site is located within the Green Belt and Policy GB1 of the Adopted Local Plan
sets out acceptable uses and development within the Green Belt. These include
essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation and other uses of land
which preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The Policy cross-refers to Policy
GB8 for the change of use of buildings in the Green Belt.
9.
Policy GB6 sets out when proposals for commercial equestrian establishments will be
permitted and states that there should be sufficient existing residential
accommodation on the site to meet the needs of the proposal; should not result in a
harmful proliferation of commercial equestrian establishments within an area; should
not create an unacceptable traffic hazard and suitable riding land is available for
exercising the horses off the public highway.
10.
Policy GB8 sets out when the change of use of buildings in the Green Belt will be
permitted. This states that the use proposed should not have a greater impact than
the present or last use on the openness of the Green Belt and should not be harmful
to the character and setting of the building; the change of use of more than 300sq.m.
to business uses within individual agricultural units will not be acceptable; the building
must have been completed more than 4 years before the date of the application,
should be of a permanent and substantial construction in sound condition and of a
form, bulk and general design in keeping with its surroundings; the proposal should
not involve the extension or reconstruction of the building and there should be
suitable access and car parking.
Equestrian activities
11.
The proposed equestrian activities at this site, comprising the breeding of horses, the
DIY liveries and the storage of associated hay and feed are contained within existing
buildings at this site.
12.
The equestrian activities currently take place within the two stable buildings at the
site, and part of the existing barn is used for the storage of hay and feed. These
buildings are considered to be of a suitable size, scale and design for the proposed
activities. The site has the benefit of two paddocks which can be used to exercise and
graze the horses and there are also bridleways in the vicinity of the site.
13.
Due to the limited size and the nature of the equestrian activities at the site it is
considered that there is no requirement for on site accommodation in connection with
this use. Whilst there are other equestrian facilities in the locality, it is considered that,
due to the relatively small scale of this operation, the equestrian activities do not
result in a harmful proliferation of commercial equestrian activities in the vicinity.
14.
Subject to the Highway Authority raising no objections to the proposal it is considered
that the equestrian activities at the site comply with Policy GB6.
Business activities
15.
PVWRCM
The businesses at this site are two fold comprising: the wedding carriage business
(which involves the storage of a horse drawn wedding carriage and wedding cars, the
stabling of a horse for pulling the carriage and a reception area), and the parking of
horseboxes in connection with a horse transport business. The wedding carriage
business occupies the front part of the large barn at the site and the storage of horse
boxes takes part in the rear part of the barn. There is also some overlap with the
equestrian activity as the horse is stabled in the loose boxes at the site.
61
16.
All of the activities in connection with the business activities are contained within the
buildings, and are not be visible from outside the site. It is considered that the
business activities are of a nature that is unlikely to generate any external activity that
would have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the
last use of the site as a chicken farm.
17.
The front part of the barn, the reception area and the section of the rear part of the
barn to be used for the parking of the horse boxes occupy an area of 286sq.m. The
front part of the barn is divided from the rear part by a solid brick wall, the applicant
also proposes to erect a wall delineating the part of the barn to be used for the
parking of the horse boxes. The business use falls under the 300sq.m. threshold set
out in the Policy. It is considered that it would be possible to impose conditions on
any permission limiting the parts of the building used for the business activities due to
the dividing internal walls.
18.
The buildings used in connection with the business have clearly been on the site for
in excess of four years. The buildings are of substantial construction and appear to be
of sound condition. There are no proposals to reconstruct any of the buildings. The
buildings have the form, bulk, and general design of typical farm buildings and do not
appear out of character with the predominantly rural surroundings.
19.
The comments of the Highway Authority are awaited. However there is ample space
on site for off street parking.
20.
Subject to no objections being raised by the Highway Authority it is considered that
the business activities at the site comply with Policy GB8.
Other Material Considerations
21.
The site is conveniently located in relation to such neighbours as do exist and the
activities do not appear to have any adverse effect on the living conditions of
occupiers of nearby dwellings.
22.
Given the last use of the site as a farm, and the floor space and traffic movements
associated with the farm, the business and equestrian activities at this site, the
subject of this application, do not result in a net gain in the number of employees or
traffic movements. There is therefore no requirement for developer contributions.
23.
The development has no implications for the source protection zone.
Conclusion
24.
No objections are raised to the principle of providing commercial enterprises at the
site, and it is considered that the use of the site to provide DIY livery; horse breeding
and the storage of associated hay and feed will have an acceptable impact upon the
open and rural character of this part of the Green Belt, that accords with Policy GB6
of the Adopted Local Plan.
25.
The re-use of buildings in the Green Belt is generally acceptable subject to
compliance with certain criteria. The buildings to be used for the wedding carriage
business and storage of horse boxes are of a suitable form and appearance that
reflect the former use of the site as a farm and have been in situ for in excess of four
years. The business activities due to their nature and a scale are unlikely to generate
external activity that is out of character with the locality or have a materially greater
impact upon the Green Belt than the last use of the site as a chicken farm. The
business activities are considered to comply with Policy GB8.
PVWRCM
62
26.
Subject to no objections being raised by the Highway Authority it is considered that
the development complies with Policies GB6 and GB8 of the Adopted Local Plan.
Recommendation:
That the application be deferred and
determination of it be delegated to the Head
of Planning subject to the imposition of such
conditions as are required by the Council’s
Highways Officers to ensure a satisfactory
decision.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
PVWRCM
Within one month of the date of this permission the new wall shown on the floor plan
of barn 1 on plan number WHF 3A shall be erected. Thereafter the wall shall be
permanently maintained. The Local Planning Authority shall be advised in writing of
the date the construction of the wall commenced. The existing dividing wall between
the front and rear part of the barn shall hereafter be retained.
Reason: In order to ensure that the area of the barn used for the business operations
is clearly defined - Local Plan Policy GB8
The wedding carriage business and the storage of horseboxes in connection with the
horsebox business shall only take place within the areas identified on plan number
WHF3A.
Reason: In order to ensure that the area of the barn used for the business operations
is clearly defined - Local Plan Policy GB8
63
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward
Reference No:
07/00421/FULL
Full
Proposal:
Agenda No.13
Location:
Construction of a four bedroom detached house and garage
following demolition of existing bungalow
St Florian Fishery Road Maidenhead SL6 1UN
Applicant:
Mr And Mrs England
Agent:
H J Stribling And Partners
Date Received:
16th February 2007
Case Officer:
Sheila Bowen
Recommendation:
REF
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement
Area Liable to Flooding (Zone 3)
Sustainable Development Implications:
Re-use of previously developed land
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – F1, H10, H11, DG1, P4
Structure Plan – DP5, EN6, EN8
2.
3.
Previous Relevant Decisions
80/411430
Single storey side extension
Approved
06/01932
4-bed
detached
dwelling Withdrawn
following demolition of existing
22.8.1980
25.9.2006
The Highway Authority
No objection.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Three letters and an e-mail objecting to the application have been received from
neighbours, plus a letter from the Fisheries Residents Association. The points made
are summarised as follows:
- Flood Policy F1 has not been addressed
- The number of habitable rooms has been ignored
- The footprint of the house has not been reduced
- The raised floor levels increase the bulk of the house and adverse impact
- The house is only 2m further back from the road
- There are no accurate drawings of existing ground cover
- The floor level of the rear extensions lower than the rest of the house and may be
below the 1% flood level so should not be included in the 1978 ground cover
- The proposal increases the number of habitable rooms from 6 in 1978 to 12
- The footprint will be double that of 1978, and the bulk 4 times
- The drawings of the trees are misleading, as they do not provide screening
PVWRCM
64
5.
The representation of neighbours concerns in the Planning Statement is not
accurate
There would still be overlooking, and the property would be overbearing
Redevelopment of Nara was refused and so should this on the same grounds
Set back from road only 10.5m, while others are 18m back
The building will be much higher than neighbours
Bulk over twice that of existing bungalow
Would overlook neighbours houses and gardens
Would look towards the river over the pools and private gardens of the neighbours
Threat to neighbouring trees from the new development and the construction
works
The existing ground cover is less than that shown in the FRA
The proposed ground cover is larger than that shown in FRA
The steps should be included in ground cover
Ground cover should be 170 sq m plus at most 30 sq m, ie 200 sq m, in
accordance with F1.
The proposal is either 110 or 140 sq m larger (depending if steps are included)
Increased number of people at risk
The boat store with rooms over could be a potential extra dwelling in the flood plain
Permitted development rights should be removed if permission granted
Height and roof pitch is excessive
Nara has large windows, so the new house would overlook these
Would cut out light to Nara
Development too massive for the plot
The proposed development is higher and further back on the plot so 4 The Rushes
would be more overlooked
The wind propeller is near 4 The Rushes and is unsightly
Environment Agency
The land is wholly within Flood Zone 3a High Probability. The development has
raised floor levels in accordance with EA standing advice, so the EA raises no
objections, and suggests conditions. Advises that the Council should determine the
application in accordance with its own policy on flooding.
6.
Tree Officer
No BS5837: 2005 Tree Survey has been submitted, so the full impact of the
development cannot be assessed. There are protected trees on the adjacent sites
which could be affected. Main rooms in the house will be overshadowed by trees,
leading to pressure to prune or fell them. The new access on the north side will be
within the root protection zones of protected beech trees
REMARKS
This application is brought to Panel at the request of Councillor Wilson on the
grounds of public interest.
The Site and Surroundings
1.
PVWRCM
The site is an existing bungalow and gardens located in the Fisheries area of
Maidenhead. It lies between two two-storey houses, and opposite other houses, with
a garden area belonging to the bungalow directly opposite, across the private road
serving the houses in the area. There are trees covered by TPOs on the boundaries
of the sites to the north and south of the property.
65
The Proposal
2.
The proposal is the replacement of the bungalow with a four bedroom house, with a
double garage, plant room and garden stores with boat store over to the rear. The
house would have a raised floor level, and would feature a balcony at the front,
forward facing gables, and a pergola attaching the house to the garage. The
development would be served by solar panels in the roof and a wind turbine attached
to the garage.
Principal Planning Issues
3.
The principal planning issues are the compliance of the proposal with flood plain
policy, the impact of the development on the street scene, the character of the area,
and the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings, and the impact on trees.
4.
Although the Environment Agency has no objection to the scheme, it has reminded the
Council that it should consider whether the application is in accordance with its own
flood plain policies. Policy F1 of the Local Plan only allows extensions to buildings of
30sq m and under in footprint, cumulatively since 1978.
5.
In this case using the methodology in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance,
it has been calculated that the footprint of the bungalow in 1978 was 198sq m. The
proposal is for a house with a ground floor area of 222 sq m, while the garden building
would have a floor area of 63 sq m, and the outdoor steps would have a further 27 sq
m giving a total floor area of 312sq m. This is an increase of 114sq m over the 1978
footprint, and 84sq m larger than that allowed under Policy F1. If permitted, the number
of habitable rooms would have doubled over that period. Although the application is
accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that the proposal would
not conflict with the aims of the Policy, the development would rely in being raised on
piers. The accompanying text to the Policy clearly identifies that “the use of pier
foundations will not be acceptable as a means of overcoming an objection to a
proposal on the grounds of Policy F1. In the past, where this form of design solution
has been allowed, problems have resulted from the inability of the planning authority to
ensure that voids beneath the building are not obstructed by domestic effects or by
flood debris.” The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy F1 of the Local Plan.
6.
The proposed house would be set forward from the neighbouring properties by
approximately 7m. Although in a similar position to the existing bungalow on the site, it
is considered that the positioning of a two storey house at this location would be
harmful to the street scene and the character of the area because of the dominating
impact of the house on the street. Such harm would be contrary to Policy H10 of the
Local Plan, and Policy DP5 of the Structure Plan.
7.
The previous application that was withdrawn included flank windows that would have
caused overlooking of the neighbouring properties. This problem has been addressed
in the current application by the insertion of etched glass windows to the sides. Making
any permission conditional on the use of obscure glazed windows to the flanks would
ensure privacy. The dwelling would be 11m from the nearest dwelling (Tamarisk) and it
is not considered that the development would block light to neighbouring dwellings to
any material degree. The rear of the house would be 33m away from 4 The Rushes,
and the roof of the two-storey garage building would obscure views from the only
bedroom window facing that house, so it is not considered that unacceptable
overlooking would result.
8.
The lack of a BS5837: 2005 Tree Survey means that it is not possible to properly
assess the impact of the proposal on the protected trees bounding the site. The Tree
Officer is concerned that there could be pressure to remove or inappropriately prune
some of these trees as a result of the development, and also there could be damage to
the roots caused by the new access crossing their root protection zones.
PVWRCM
66
9.
Fishery Road is a private street, and no objections are raised on issues of parking or
traffic generation.
Conclusion
10.
The proposal is contrary to flood plain policy, is harmful to the street scene and the
character of the area, and may be harmful to protected trees in the vicinity, as the
arboricultural impact cannot be fully assessed. The proposal is therefore contrary to the
Local Plan a refusal of permission is recommended.
Recommendation:
Refuse permission
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
PVWRCM
The site is within an area at high risk of flooding and the proposed replacement
dwelling would result in a net increase in the footprint of development on the site
since September 1978 of more than 30 square metres and a doubling of the number
of habitable rooms. The proposal would impede the flow of flood water, reduce the
capacity of the flood plain to store water and increase the number of people at risk of
flooding, contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan. In particular it would
conflict with Policy EN6 of the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016, Policy F1 of the
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan 1999 (Incorporating
Alterations adopted in June 2003) and Supplementary Planning Guidance in relation
to Policy F1.
The proposed house would be set forward from the neighbouring properties. The
positioning of a two storey house at this location would be harmful to the street scene
and the character of the area because of the dominating impact of the house on the
street, and the resultant reduction in the semi-rural character of the area. Such harm
would be contrary to Policy H10 of the Local Plan, and Policy DP5 of the Structure
Plan.
The applicant has not submitted a BS5837: 2005 Survey, which means that it is not
possible to properly assess the impact of the proposal on the protected trees
bounding the site. There could be pressure to remove or inappropriately prune some
of these trees as a result of the development, and also there could be damage to the
roots caused by the new access crossing their root protection zones. The proposal is
contrary to Policy N6 of the Local Plan.
67
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Parish/Ward: Bisham And Agenda No. 14
Cookham Ward
07/00446/FULL
Full
Proposal:
Erection of shelter to protect three growing beds
Location:
Riverside Nursery Temple Lane Bisham Marlow SL7 1RS
Applicant:
Europlants U K Ltd
Agent:
Faulkners
Date Received:
19th February 2007
Case Officer:
David Islip
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt
Area Liable to Flood
Area of Special Landscape Importance
Setting of the Thames
Sustainable Development Implications: Included in report
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – GB1, GB2, F1, N1, N2, CA2, DG1
Structure Plan – DP3, EN1
2.
3.
Previous Relevant Decisions
40285
Stable building
Approved
14.06.76
99/34152
Formation of new access and layout Prior Approval 09.07.99
of internal road – (Agricultural not required
Determination)
00/35278
Erection of 4 polytunnels and use of Refused
stable as office
10.10.00
03/40910
Temporary consent for the erection of Refused
plant protection tunnels
03.08.04
05/01765
Erection of two polytunnel
erection of fence and gates
and Pending
consideration
Neighbour Notification Responses
One letter of objection received from a resident of Bisham Grange, summarised as
follows:
- The proposed structures give the appearance from a distance of being large green
sheds. The structures are enormous and offensive.
4.
Parish Council
No comments received within consultation period
PVWRCM
68
REMARKS
The Site and Surrounding
1.
Riverside Nurseries (formerly known as Hayden’s Nursery) is situated on the south
side of Temple Lane, opposite the National Sports Centre at Bisham Abbey. The
rectangular site has an area of 1.414 ha and has been used as a wholesale nursery
for seven years, specialising in the supply of specimen trees and shrubs to the
horticultural industry, garden centres and amenity markets.
2.
The site is flat and has been divided into seven growing areas separated by
hedgerows and paths. The former stable building situated adjacent to the northwest
boundary is used as an office, storage and staff room. Parking areas for visitor cars
the loading unloading of commercial vehicles are situated art the northern end of the
site with access from Temple Lane. A number of polytunnels have been erected on
the site. These do not benefit from planning permission and are currently
unauthorised.
The Proposal
3.
Full planning permission is sought to erect three ’lightweight shelter frames’ over
existing growing bed at the southern end of the site. These will provide improved
growing conditions especially for tender plants by providing shade from the sunlight
during the summer months and by acting as a windbreak.
4.
The proposed shelter frames, which would replace the unauthorised polytunnels, are
manufactured from 60mm diameter x 2mm gauge galvanised tube steel supports and
50mm roof rails. They would be covered with green monofilament netting with a 40%
shading value to the roof. The shelter frames would be 3.5m high and have total site
coverage of approximately 0.33ha.
Principal Planning Issues
5.
The site is not only within the Green Belt but also an Area of Special Landscape
importance, the Setting of the Thames and within an area liable to flood. The site is
also just outside the boundary of Bisham Conservation Area.
In the light of this it is considered that the main issue to consider relate to:
i) The appropriateness of the development in the Green Belt and
ii) The impact on the character of the surrounding area.
6.
The use of the land for horticulture falls within the definition of ’agriculture’ as set out
in Section 336 of the 1990 Planning Act. Policy GB1 of the Local Plan identifies
development for agriculture as appropriate within the Green Belt. Consequently the
proposal is acceptable in principle and there is no conflict with Policy GB1 of the Local
Plan. However, development in the Green Belt also needs to be considered against
Policy GB2 of the Local Plan.
7.
The character of the site has matured since the nursery first opened in 2000 with the
planting of hedging within the site to create a series of enclosed spaces. A number of
these hedges have been planted with trees along their length. Both trees and hedges
have now established themselves and have the benefit of further ‘greening’ the site
and restricting views into and across the site as well as providing a practical function
in aiding the growing on of plants within the enclosed areas. The proposed shelter
frames would be sited at the rear of the nursery and although they would be taller than
the polytunnels they would replace it is considered that the green monofilament
netting would blend more readily with its surroundings than the plastic sheeting used
PVWRCM
69
to cover the polytunnels. The existing planting to the boundary of the site and within it
would help minimise the impact of the shelter frames in surrounding views and
consequently it is not considered, in terms of their siting, design and the appearance
of netting covering the frames that they would detract from their surroundings nor
harm the character of the countryside (Policy GB2).
8.
Furthermore when having regard to the character of the site it is not considered that
the proposal would detract from the special qualities of the landscape (Policy N1) or
adversely affect the character and setting of the River Thames (Policy N2).
9.
The boundary of Bisham Conservation Area, in the vicinity of nursery, is on the
northeast side of Temple Lane, opposite the site. It is not considered that the siting of
the shelter frames at the southwest end of the site would have any significant impact
on the character and appearance of the conservation area when having regard to the
distance (around 90m) from this boundary and the existing screening between them.
Other Material Considerations
10.
There will be no additional in traffic movements associated with the proposed
development which the applicants state is required to raise the quality of plants grown
on the site, not the quantity.
11.
Finally, turning to the issue of flooding, the highly permeable and lightweight nature of
the shelters will not impede the flow of floodwater nor would they reduce the capacity of
the flood plain. There is no conflict with Policy F1 of the Local Plan.
Conclusion
12.
The proposal to construct three shelter frames over existing growing beds at the
southwest end of this established nursery constitutes an appropriate form of
development in the Green Belt (Policy GB1). The layout of the site has been
extensively landscaped in recent years by hedging and trees which would help
minimise the impact of the proposed shelter frames and when having regard to the
design and appearance of the shelters which would be clad in green monofilament
netting it is not considered that they would harm the character of the Green Belt (policy
GB2) or detract from the special qualities of the Area of Special Landscape Importance
(Policy N1) or the Setting of the Thames (Policy N2).
13.
The proposal would not detract from the character of the adjoining conservation area
(Policy CA2). There is no conflict with the adopted flooding policy (Policy F1) and the
proposal would not generate additional vehicular movements to and from the site.
Recommendation:
That permission be granted.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
No development shall take place until a sample of the monofilament netting to be
used to cover the shelter frames hereby permitted has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
carried out and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies - Local
Plan DG1.
70
3
PVWRCM
The polytunnels erected on the site shall be dismantled and removed from the site
within one month of the shelter frames, hereby permitted, being erected.
Reason:The site is within the Green Belt where strict control over the form, scale and
nature of development apply.
71
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward: Maidenhead Agenda No.15
Riverside Ward
07/00450/FULL
Full
Location:
Single storey rear extension, extension to loft conversion
with front and rear dormers, conversion of garage to
habitable accommodation and construction of attached
single garage
3 Frances Avenue Maidenhead SL6 8NX
Applicant:
Mr And Mrs Higgins
Agent:
Martin Lloyd Associates
Date Received:
20th February 2007
Case Officer:
Karen Layer
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Flood Plain (Zone 3 – High Risk).
Sustainable Development Implications:
Improvement of the housing stock.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, F1, H14, P4 and T5; and
Structure Plan – DP5 and EN6.
2.
3.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Reference
Description
Decision
Date
412493
Replacement double Approved
garage
24.03.1981
97/31795
First floor side and Approved
porch extension
7.11.1997
The Highway Authority
The Highway Officer raises no objections subject to standard conditions HA30
(retention of the proposed garage) and HA35 (existing parking and turning areas, as
shown on the approved drawing D.02, to be retained and kept available for parking
and turning of motor vehicles), and standard informatives HI07 and HI29.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Three letters of objection have been received from no. 2 Frances Avenue on the
grounds that:
- The property has been extended considerably in the past, and is
overdeveloped;
- The garage has already been converted without planning permission;
- Due to the proximity to the boundary and the requirement for foundations
there will be movement of the earth;
- The application is in breech of the Party Wall Act;
PVWRCM
72
- Water would overflow onto a narrow passage directly where electric and gas
meters are, leading to flooding;
- Access will be required from no. 2 for maintenance;
- The proposed garage is inadequate in size; and
- The proposal will restrict light to the northwest side of the property, specifically
to a bedroom.
5.
Parish Council
N/A.
REMARKS
Councillor Napier has requested that this application be considered by Panel so that it
can be discussed fully by Members.
The Site and Surrounding
1.
No. 3 Frances Avenue is a detached property located within the High Risk Zone 3 of
the flood plain. The property has had a number of previous extensions, including a first
floor extension and a loft conversion. There are a variety of modern house designs
within the immediate vicinity of the site.
The Proposal
2.
The application proposes to erect a single storey rear extension (to extend an existing
kitchen/breakfast room), an extension to the existing loft conversion with front and rear
dormers (the rear dormer being a small flat roofed extension to an existing large flat
roofed dormer) to turn an existing small study into a bedroom, the conversion of an
existing garage into a family room, and the construction of an attached single garage
along the boundary with no. 2 Frances Avenue (the objector’s property). There is an
existing box dormer on the rear of the property, which is to be extended to the west of
the property, and a single pitched dormer window is to be added to the front roof slope
of the property. The proposed garage is to be located on the east, adjacent to the
existing garage. It is to have a ridge height of 3.7m and will infill an existing passage
way providing access to the rear of the property.
Principal Planning Issues
3.
There are four main considerations in determining the application:
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
The impact upon the flood plain;
The impact upon the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the
street scene;
The impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and
The impact on highway safety.
Flood Plain
4.
PVWRCM
Local Plan Policy F1 advises that extensions may be granted for up to 30 sq m, taking
into account any previous extensions since 1978 (when the policy first came into
effect). Whilst this property has had a number of extensions, only those that create
additional ground floor area are taken in to account, therefore the cumulative increase
in the ground floor area of this property is 30.3 sq m. Although this is very slightly
above the figure advised in Policy F1, it is considered that the addition of 300 sq mm
will have no significant impact such that a refusal on this ground would not be
warranted in this instance.
73
Character and Appearance of the Original Dwelling and the Street Scene
5.
The appearance of a development is a material planning consideration and Planning
Policy Statement 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (PPS1) advises that all
development should seek to achieve a high quality of design that improves the
character and quality of an area. Taking into account the modern design of the original
dwelling and the variety of modern designs in the street scene, it is considered that the
proposal will have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the
original dwelling and the street scene.
Impact on the Residential Amenities of Neighbours
6.
It is considered that there would be no significant harm caused to the immediate
neighbouring properties in terms of loss of privacy, outlook, daylight, sunlight or
otherwise. The light angle guidelines in the Guidance Note "House Extensions" at
Appendix 12 of the Local Plan would not be infringed.
7.
The owner of the neighbouring property, No. 2 Frances Avenue, has raised a number
of concerns regarding the application. However, a number of these are not material
planning considerations, these include access for maintenance (this is a private matter
between the parties) and also the Party Wall Act (applicant’s attention is drawn to the
provisions of the Party Wall Act in all planning permissions, as a standard paragraph).
There are concerns regarding loss of light to the bedroom of the neighbouring property;
however, the window for this is located on the front of the property.
8.
Whilst it is noted that the property has had a number of previous extensions, it is
considered that the site has not been overdeveloped and that the current scheme is
modest in scale.
Highway Implications
9.
The proposal will result in the conversion of an existing garage and the addition of a
single garage on the east of the property along the boundary. There would also be an
increase in the number of bedrooms, from 4 to 5 (through the extension of the existing
small study into a bedroom). It is considered that sufficient space would remain on the
site to accommodate the car parking for the resulting dwelling in compliance with the
adopted parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Local Plan as amended by the Royal
Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Parking Strategy, May 2004. The Highway
Officer has recommended the use of conditions to ensure that the available parking is
retained but these conditions are considered to be unnecessary, whilst there is a
potential increase in the demand for parking on the site, the property is located off a
non-classified road where there is not restriction on-street parking. Furthermore, there
is adequate parking in the frontage of the site.
10.
Concerns have been raised regarding the size proposed garage, and that it will be
inadequate. Internally the garage measures 2.6m (at the narrowest point) by 6.5m.
The measurements in the adopted Parking Strategy state that a garage should
measure at least 3m x 6m, although the proposed garage does not meet the Council’s
standards there is more than adequate on site parking and the proposal is considered
to be acceptable.
Conclusion
11.
PVWRCM
The proposal is considered acceptable with regard to the aims of Local and Structure
Plan policies. Whilst the extension would be very slightly above the 30 sq m limitation
under Policy F1 of the Local Plan, this is not considered to be significant.
74
Recommendation:
The planning permission be granted subject
to the following condition:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
Informative(s)
1
2
PVWRCM
HI07
HI29
Damage to the Highway
No Equipment/Materials On Public Highway
75
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward: Hurley Parish Agenda No.16
Council
07/00485/FULL
Full
Reference No:
Proposal:
Location:
Construction of a replacement detached three bedroom
house
Temple Ferry Place Mill Lane Hurley Maidenhead SL6 5ND
Applicant:
Mr And Mrs W Burgess
Agent:
R J Newell BSc MRTPI
Date Received:
22nd February 2007
Case Officer:
Peter Carey
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Green Belt, Setting of The Thames, Area of
Special Landscape Importance and Area
Liable to Flood
Sustainable Development Implications:
Covered in the report
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan –GB1, GB2, GB3, N1, N2, F1, DG1, ARCH2, ARCH3, ARCH4, P4
Structure Plan – DP3, EN6
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
406478
One-bedroom log cabin, replacing a mobile home and various
outbuildings etc. on the site.
A
31.03.78
428683
Replacement cabin of about 100sq. metres (not built)
15.05.95
A
96/29912 5.9 metre high bungalow
A
28.05.96
Appeal against restriction on PD rights condition dismissed
02.06.97
96/29913 5.9 metre high bungalow with an integral garage
28.05.96
R
Appeal
dismissed
02.06.97
PVWRCM
96/30719 Domestic greenhouse
20.11.96
A
00/35455 5 Velux roof lights
14.12.00
A
00/35456 Attached double garage
30.08.01
R
76
03/40171 Erection of replacement 3-bedroom house
04.06.03
R
03/41231 Erection of replacement 3-bedroom house
09.02.04
R
04/01790 Construction of replacement 3-bedroom house
18.03.05
R
Appeal
dismissed
01.09.05
06/01873 Construction of replacement 3-bedroom house
02.10.06
3.
R
The Highway Authority
No objections. Parking adequate. Access is via Public Footpath 9 Hurley; provided
footpath is kept open and unobstructed during construction, it is not considered the
proposal will have an adverse effect on the footpath. Conditions and informatives
supplied.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
5 addresses consulted; any responses will be reported in Late Observations Report.
5.
Parish Council
To be reported in Late Observations Report.
6.
Council’s Archaeology Adviser
Did not ask to be consulted, but previous comments were to effect that site has
potential to contain medieval remains and consequently requires an archaeological
evaluation to establish the potential impact of the development on any remains
present. Brief for the evaluation supplied in relation to earlier application.
7.
Environment Agency
No response to current application, but comments on previous can be summarised as
follows.
Site is within 1% annual probability flood plain. Agency requires underside of floor
structure to be set at or above 29.7m AOD (N). 1 metre wide under floor void
openings required set at least 1 per 5 metre run of wall on all sides. Any grilles in the
openings should be set at 100mm centres (minimum).
REMARKS
The Site
1.
Temple Ferry Place is an isolated Thames-side property situated between Temple
and Hurley. Access is via a private gated drive from Temple, shared with Manor and
Temple Cottages and, past the access to these properties, with Public Footpath 9
Hurley. There is no vehicular access from Hurley. The house is just over 10 years
old, single-storey, with roof lights serving some loft accommodation.
The Proposal
2.
PVWRCM
It is proposed to demolish the house and rebuild in the same position a replacement
three-bedroom house.
77
Principal Issues
3.
The principal planning issue is whether the proposal constitutes appropriate
development in the Green Belt and whether it would have a harmful impact on the
Green Belt or the character of the countryside, bearing in mind the Thames Setting
and Area of Special Landscape considerations. Another consideration is that the
proposed development is in the flood plain.
Appraisal of Principal Planning Issues
4.
The proposal must be considered under Policies DP3 of the Structure Plan and GB1,
GB2 and GB3 of the Local Plan in terms of its impact on the Green Belt. Policy F1 of
the Local Plan (EN6 of the Structure Plan) relating to flooding must also be
considered, as well as Policies N1 and N2 of the Local Plan in relation to the Area of
Special Landscape Importance and Setting of the Thames respectively.
5.
Local Plan Policy GB1 defines what development is considered appropriate in the
Green Belt: residential development is only considered appropriate where it accords
with policies GB3 to GB5. This is a proposal for a replacement dwelling, and the
main relevant policy is section 4) of GB3, which allows for the one-for-one
replacement of permanent dwellings, provided the replacement is not materially
larger or does not result in a material alteration in the scale of development on the
site. Policy GB3 also requires that new dwellings have regard to local building styles
in its design and the materials used and comply with policy GB2, which sets out the
criteria to be met by development which is in principle deemed to be acceptable.
6.
Policy GB3 (4) of the Local Plan allows for the one-for-one replacement of a dwelling
subject to it not being materially larger than the existing dwelling on the site.
Floorspace is a guiding factor, however, increase in scale and bulk need also to be
assessed. In this case, the existing dwelling has a footprint of some 116 square
metres and floorspace of about 193 square metres. The proposed dwelling would
have an additional 63 square metres footprint (54% increase) and a total floorspace
of some 297 square metres, which similarly amounts to about a 54% increase.
7.
Under Policy GB3 the key issue is whether the new dwelling is materially larger than
the existing house and whether it would materially alter the scale of development on
the site. Paragraph 2.1.25 of the Local Plan sets out the criteria for determining
whether a proposal is materially larger. However, it would also obviously be
unsatisfactory in terms of the impact on the Green Belt if buildings gradually
increased significantly in size and bulk through a succession of permissions and this
issue is examined further later in this report.
8.
Floorspace is a guiding factor in determining whether a proposal is materially larger,
but the main determining factors are its scale and bulk and other factors set out in
policy GB3, in particular the siting and design of the building, and its effect on the
openness of the Green Belt. Previous schemes were considered unacceptable
because, compared with the existing, the greater ridge height (up to 9.1m in one
instance) and additional bulk were judged to result in a harmful impact on the
openness of the Green Belt. The most recently refused scheme would have had a
main ridge height of 7.0 metres and 6.0 metre ridge height to the garage.
9.
The following table compares the dimensions and floorspace of the existing, refused
and proposed dwellings.
Maximum
Height
PVWRCM
Existing
House
First
Scheme
03/40171
Second
Scheme
03/41231
Appealed
Scheme
04/01790
Recently
Refused
Scheme
06/01873
Current
Scheme
6.5 m
9.1 m
8.0m
7.1m
7.0m
6.8m
78
Overall
Depth
Overall
Width
Garage
Length
Footprint
9.0m
9.0m
9.0m
6.8m
(15.8*m)
16.2m
23.7m
21.8m
21.3m
18.8m
15.4m
N/A
7.5m
6.0m
5.2m
N/A
N/A
116sq.m.
155sq.m.
146sq.m.
144sq.m.
188sq. m. 173sq. m.
33.6
25.9
24.1
62.1
300sq.m.
264sq.m.
238sq.m.
344sq. m. 297sq.m.
55.4
36.8
23.3
78.2
% Increase
Floorspace
% Increase
8.2
9.0m
193sq.m.
(10.4m**
)
49.1
53.9
* The overall depth reflected the cruciform shape of the proposed house;
each arm would have been 6.8m wide/deep
** Including ground floor porch and study projection
10
The first scheme showed a main building with a bulky two-storey side garage wing.
This was not considered subordinate in scale to the main part of the building. In the
second scheme the garage wing was reduced in scale in terms of its ridge height and
length to make it more subordinate to the main building. The appealed scheme
further reduced the scale and bulk of the proposal, the additional being accounted for
mainly in the form of the garage and living space above. The Inspector considered
that the roof design, incorporating dormers and gables, would give the property a
much more bulky appearance than the existing and as a result make it more visually
intrusive. The subsequent scheme sought to address this criticism by incorporating a
simple, low roof, but in view of the considerable additional floorspace created, officers
were unable to approve it and it was refused under delegated powers. The present
scheme has been designed to keep the increase in height to a minimum, consistent
with the need to raise floor level to meet Environment Agency requirements (see
below). It would have a shallow pitched roof with no protruding dormers or gables, so
that the visual bulk of the building would be below eaves level, a significant difference
from the appealed scheme.
11.
The main two-storey part of the building would be built to the same footprint as the
existing, the increase being due to the provision of a single storey front projection
incorporating entrance porch and a small study room. Whilst it is still considered the
proposal is materially larger than the existing dwelling, clearly it is considerably less
so than the previous proposal. In addition there are other factors at play which it is
considered amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify an approval.
12.
The development will not lead to a material intensification in the level of activity on the
site. It will still be a three-bedroom dwelling house. The proposal would not involve
the loss of any agricultural land and would have no greater impact on residential
amenities in the locality than the existing house, which can barely be seen from any
other property, being 140 metres away from Temple Cottage, the nearest property,
and 150 metres from Dairy Cottage on the opposite side of the lane.
13.
The existing house is of an undistinguished design that appears rather incongruous in
this remote rural location and is reported to be of sub-standard construction. The
Design Statement for the replacement house describes it as a well-proportioned
modern building, with clean lines and uncluttered plans and elevations. The ground
floor is set 1-1.2m above mean ground level for flood prevention and mitigation
purposes, the supporting structure enclosing the underfloor voids being in the form of
arched brickwork using handmade smooth red imperial brick, characteristic of
Thames-side properties. The house itself would be horizontally clad in natural
Western Red Cedar, which is intended to enable the house to harmonise with its
woodland surroundings as it takes on its characteristic silver grey appearance on
PVWRCM
79
weathering. Although there is a wide variety of architectural styles in the area, it is
considered the proposed design would be more in keeping with its rural location than
the existing, would enhance the character of the area, reflecting some elements of
the design of nearby properties and in general would represent a marked visual
improvement. The design statement highlights its advantages over the existing
dwelling. These in summary are a design more appropriate to its setting, both within
the plot (over 2.5Ha) and in the context of its proximity to the river and Hurley village;
improved thermal insulation and energy efficiency; as well as improvements over the
design of the existing house in terms of appearance, functionality and structural
soundness. These improvements are cited by the applicant as construing very
special circumstances in which permission could be justified. Also adduced is the
fact that under Policy GB4, the property could be extended so long as the extension
was not a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building,
i.e. the building as it currently stands. In support attention is drawn to other
replacement dwellings permitted in recent years in the vicinity, including Temple
Cottage, where very special circumstances relating to the improvement in the
character and appearance of the site were adduced to justify an increase over the
original building on that site. Although these advantages albeit in the context of a
different, but also good quality design were advanced in the context of the most
recently refused application, they were not considered sufficient to justify the
additional scale of development then proposed. In the context of the present
application it is considered that the advantages of the proposed design (including a
roof design that manages to provide an attractive pitched roof over a full two-storey
building with under floor voids at a maximum height of only about 6.8 metres) do now
amount to such very special circumstances as would justify the more modest
percentage increase in footprint and floorspace.
14.
In terms of the impact on the Setting of the Thames, the proposed house would be
set in the same location relative to the river, although the design would give principal
rooms views towards the river, which the present property lacks. As the property has
generally only distant views from public viewpoints, it is considered that the increase
in size would have little impact on the Thames Setting or Area of Special Landscape
Importance and the extent to which the improved design is visible from such points,
the scheme would be beneficial to these areas’ character and appearance. In terms
of landscaping, the applicant intends to carry out a programme of landscape
improvements, which could be covered by condition. Accordingly, it is not considered
that the design would conflict with Policies N1 and N2 of the Local Plan.
15.
Finished ground floor level needs to be raised to meet the Environment Agency’s
requirements. The required level is for the underside of the floor structure to be set at
or above 29.7m AOD (N). As a replacement dwelling, there would be no increase in
the number of people or properties at risk from flooding. Accordingly, subject to
conditions to ensure that floodable areas are retained, the proposal would comply
with Policy F1.
16.
The existing house is remote, over 140 metres, from its closest neighbours, Temple
Cottage to the east and Dairy Cottage to the south-west, and this factor, coupled with
the presence of a dense tree screen along the boundary, affords each property
mutual privacy.
17.
Given that there would be an increase in the scale of development on the site, it
would be appropriate to remove permitted development rights to extend the building
and erect outbuildings and to indicate in an informative, that in view of such increase
in the scale of development, it would be most unlikely that the Council would in future
consider favourably proposals to extend the property any further.
Conclusion
18.
PVWRCM
The proposal is to replace an existing building with one of a design and character
appropriate to its rural setting. Given the improvements to the design and the
80
appropriateness of the materials to its setting, it is not considered that the proposal
would have a material impact on the openness of the Green Belt and consequently
that the scheme would comply with the provisions of policy GB2. In the context of
Policy GB3, it is considered that the increase in the size of the building, whilst
material, can be justified in the context of the very special circumstances advanced
on behalf of the applicant. On this basis there would appear to be no conflict with
BSP Policy DP3 and LP Policy GB1. .
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT PERMISSION
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
4
5
6
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
C09 Samples of materials
Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, D, E, F and G of part 1 of Schedule 2
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or
any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no
enlargement, improvement or any other alteration (including the extension of any
hard surfaced areas or the erection of any ancillary building or structure within the
curtilage) of the dwellinghouse the subject of this permission shall be carried out
without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: The site is located within the designated Green Belt and within an identified
Area Liable to Flood where strict controls over the form, scale and nature of
development apply. The site is also within an area of archaeological potential and
any works outside the existing building slab which might affect any archaeological
remains or artefacts would need to be carried out in the context of an archaeological
evaluation of the site. Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB1, GB2, F1, ARCH2, ARCH3,
ARCH4, Structure Plan C4, EN3, EN6.
Prior to any work commencing on site or any equipment, machinery or materials
being brought on to the site, detailed drawings showing the position and type of
fencing, in accordance with British Standard 5837, to protect the entire root
areas/crown spread of trees, groups of trees and other vegetation to be retained
during construction work, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres and
erected prior to any demolition, removal of topsoil, and commencement of building
operations, and shall be retained in position until development is completed. The
land so enclosed shall be kept clear of all dumping, materials, machinery and cement
mixing and the existing soil levels shall not be altered or disturbed. No fires should
be lit on the land so enclosed. 72 hours notice shall be given to the Council to enable
it to ensure that the tree protection measures are installed as approved.
Reason: To protect trees which contribute to the visual amenities of the site and
surrounding area. Relevant Policies - Local Plan DG1, N6, IMP1, Structure Plan
LD3.
The dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be constructed with the oversite concrete
finished no higher than existing ground level and the underside of the floor structure
set at or above 29.70 metres AOD(N). Under-floor voids and openings shall be
provided as indicated on the approved plans. Details of openings at least 1 metre
wide up to at least the 1% annual probability flood level shall be shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any construction work is
commenced. Any grilles inserted into these openings shall take the form of vertical
bars at not less than 100mm centres. The underfloor voids shall be kept clear of any
obstruction at all times. They shall not be used for any form of storage.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows
and reduction of floodwater storage capacity. Relevant Policies - Local Plan F1,
Structure Plan EN3.
C64 Landscaping Scheme
81
7
8
C64A Replacement Planting
No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the continued preservation in situ or by record of this area of
archaeological interest. Relevant Policies - Local Plan ARCH2, ARCH4, Structure
Plan EN4.
Informative(s)
1
PVWRCM
You are advised that the Local Planning Authority has only allowed the increase in
the size of the permitted house over that of its predecessor because it accepts that
very special circumstances existed to justify the increase. In this context, it is most
unlikely that it would, having removed permitted development rights by condition 3 of
the permission, consider favourably proposals to extend the dwelling further or to
erect additional outbuildings within its curtilage.
82
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward
Reference No:
07/00527/FULL
Full
Agenda No. 17
Proposal:
Provision of a disabled access ramp and associated parking
Location:
Waldeck House Waldeck Road Maidenhead SL6 8BR
Applicant:
Royal Borough Of Windsor And Maidenhead
Agent:
The Anthony Smith Partnership
Date Received:
28th February 2007
Case Officer:
Linda Arlidge
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Employment Area
Area liable to flooding
Sustainable Development Implications:
Accessibility for all
Impact on Flood Risk
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, F1, E10, T9
Structure Plan – EN6
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
None.
3.
Neighbour Notification Responses
No comments received to date.
4.
Access Officer
Supports the scheme.
REMARKS
This application is presented before the Panel as it involves development on land in
which the Borough has an interest.
The Site and Surroundings
1.
PVWRCM
The site comprises a three storey late 1960’s building divided into 25 light industrial
units, to the south of Waldeck Road, approximately 90 metres west of the junction
with Reform Road. Surrounded by industrial, commercial and warehouse buildings,
the main building is constructed on a north/south axis, with an access road and two
blocks of single storey garages/storerooms to the east. A landscaped strip,
approximately 6 metres wide, laid to grass with several semi-mature trees, separates
the building from the footway and access road. At each end of the building, an area
of paving leads from the footway across this landscaped strip to one of the two
pedestrian entrances. In addition, a vehicle loading bay is constructed in the centre
of this eastern elevation. The most southerly of the pedestrian entrances is recessed,
with two steps leading up from the paved area to double doors through which is a
83
stairwell lobby. Parking for around 15 vehicles is provided on an informal basis along
the access road, with the pedestrian and lorry accesses marked as ‘Keep Clear’
zones.
2.
The site lies lays within an Employment Area as defined by the Local Plan proposal
maps and within an area liable to flooding (Zone 3 - high risk of flooding – 1 in 100
years).
The Proposal
3.
Neither of the two pedestrian entrances incorporate the requirements of the current
Building Regulations Approved Document M or BS8300 (2001) for the design of
buildings to facilitate use by disabled persons. Internal works, including the provision
of a unisex disabled toilet, are planned to enable wheelchair bound users or visitors
to access the building. This proposal relates only to the external layout of the most
southerly pedestrian entrance.
4.
The proposal is to construct and mark out a single disabled user parking bay
immediately to the south of this pedestrian entrance, and provide an access ramp up
to an automated opening door to be inserted adjacent to the existing double doors. A
section of footpath would be lowered and tactile paving provided leading from the
access road into the new bay. The concrete ramp, with capping brick-on-edge side
walls, would be approximately 4.95 metres long and 1.63 metres wide, with a gradient
of 1:15, and ground area of 8.06 square metres. Galvanised steel handrails at 900
mm from finished ground level, with intermediate kneel rails, would be fixed to each of
the two sides. A level landing, approximately 1.2 metres square, would be provided in
the existing entrance recess in front of the new door.
5.
The applicant states the provision of a disabled toilet and access facilities will provide
increased opportunities for employment within the ground floor of this building.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
The site is identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map as being in an area at high risk
from flooding. Accordingly, the main considerations are the impact of the
development on visual amenity and on flood risk. The improvement of facilities for
people with disabilities is also a material consideration and Policy T9 of the Local
Plan encourages such improvements.
Impact on visual amenity
7.
The area of the site subject to this proposal is screened from public view by the main
building to the west, fencing to the south and garages to the east. The ramp, involving
relatively minor changes in ground level, and open hand-rails, will have minimal
impact on visual amenity in this well-screened urban setting. The provision of the
disabled parking space will result in the loss of a small area of soft landscaping,
currently laid to grass and containing a rosebed. Whilst any loss of soft landscaping
should generally be avoided, given the benefits of the scheme, the loss is considered
acceptable in this instance. Accordingly, given the minor nature of the works, and
their screening, the proposal will have negligible impact on visual amenity.
Impact on flood risk
8.
PVWRCM
Policy F1 of the Local Plan states that new non-residential development, including
extensions in excess of 30 square metres, will not be permitted unless the applicant
has demonstrated by means of a flood risk assessment that the proposed
development would not impede the flow of flood water, reduce the capacity of the
flood plain to store flood water or increase the number of people or properties at risk
from flooding.
84
9.
Records indicate Waldeck House has not been extended since construction. The
ground area of the proposed ramp is 8.06 square metres and the construction of the
parking space will not result in the creation of additional volume above ground.
Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy F1 and a flood risk assessment is not
required.
Other Material Considerations
10.
There are currently no parking bays for drivers with disabilities on the site, which
provides for up to 15 car parking spaces under informal arrangements on the access
road. Existing ‘Keep Clear’ markings on the access road in front of the proposed
disabled parking space appear to be observed in practice by drivers. Accordingly, the
proposal will not result in loss of any spaces, and will provide an additional dedicated
space for a disabled driver as encouraged by Policy T9.
11.
Policy E10 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure the layout and materials used in
industrial and business schemes do not result in unneighbourly development or
undesirable intensification of an existing use. This proposal utilises appropriate
materials and suitable layout to provide increased opportunities for the employment
of people with disabilities within the ground floor of this building. It will not result in
unneighbourly development, nor is likely to result in a material intensification of the
existing use. Accordingly, the proposal accords with this policy.
Conclusion
12.
The proposed access ramp and parking bay will provide increased opportunities for
the employment of people with disabilities, whilst having negligible impact on the
visual amenity of the area. There are no implications on flood risk. Accordingly, the
proposal is recommended for approval.
Recommendation:
Permission
be granted subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
85
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward:
Parish Council
07/00601/FULL
Full
Reference No:
Proposal:
Cookham Agenda No. 18
Location:
Single storey rear extension with roof and wall mounted
extract ducting following demolition of toilet block, metal fire
escape and covered walkway
Spencers The Pound Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9QE
Applicant:
The Restaurant Group PLC
Agent:
Farrell Bass Prichard
Date Received:
5th March 2007
Case Officer:
Sarah Ellison
Recommendation:
DLA
Planning Context:
Cookham Conservation Area
Source Protection Zone
Sustainable Development Implications:
Improvement
facilities.
of
existing
restaurant
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, CA1, CA2, T5, P4, E10, IMP1, R3, CKM1
Structure Plan – DP4, DP5, EN4
2.
PVWRCM
Previous Relevant Decisions
7050/66
Extension and alteration to Permitted
toilets
27.07.66
421240
Single storey extension
Permitted
22.09.88
426204
Single storey extension for Permitted
additional toilets
15.09.92
427329
Retention of floodlights to Permitted
petanque pitch
04.08.94
06/02446
Single
storey
rear
extension with roof and
wall
mounted
extract
ducting
following
demolition of toilet block,
fire escape and covered
walkway
86
Refused as out of character 21.12.06
with
existing
building;
harmful to the Conservation
Area;
insufficient
car
parking; failure to secure
infrastructure contributions.
Appeal pending, to be
heard
by
written
representations.
3.
The Highway Authority
Comments awaited, to be reported as late observations. Objections were not raised
to application 06/02446 and the reason for refusing that application relating to
insufficient parking was included by the Panel against the recommendation of the
Highway Authority.
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Five letters of objection, summarised as follows:
- Extension is disproportionately large
- Over development
- Will cause highway danger
- Additional noise and light disturbance
- It is the same as the refused application
- unneighbourly
- Noise and fumes will be unneighbourly
- No site notice has been displayed
- The changes are minor and the same objections apply.
- The ventilation system is in a flawed location with an unacceptable noise limit of
45db
- Previous information was omitted in the earlier application relating to noise issues.
- The ventilation issues could be addressed by location of the mechanicals in the
new pitched roof and existing on to the existing flat roof above the proposed toilets,
concealed by a parapet wall.
- The decibel level should be 35db for day and night.
- Moving the ventilation system would eliminate the need for the parapet wall on the
new dining section thereby reducing the bulk of the building.
- The boundary wall is a conservation wall and the extension is located within the 1m
protection area for such walls.
- Not complied with the Party Wall Act.
- No reference has been made to the use of Class O fire rated walls for all
construction.
- There is insufficient detail of the ventilation system to enable a full appraisal to be
made.
- The extract and supply system is in close proximity to Poundside and the system
could be configured in a different manner.
- The chimney could be used to discharge the ventilation system
- The previously recommended noise limits did not relate to the existing ambient
levels, and the NR45 day time operation noise limit is too high.
- Concern over control of odour.
5.
Cookham Parish Council
Comments awaited, to be reported as late observations. The Parish Council objected
to application 06/02446.
6.
Berkshire Archaeology
No objections subject to conditions.
7.
Conservation Officer
Comments awaited, to be reported as late observations. Objections were not raised
to application 06/02446 and the reason for refusing that application relating to the
impact on the Conservation Area was included by the Panel contrary to the advice of
the Conservation Officer, who considered that the overall scheme represented an
enhancement to the appearance of the Conservation Area.
PVWRCM
87
8.
Environmental Protection
To be reported as late observations. Objections were not raised to application
06/02446.
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
1.
The site is broadly rectangular in shape and located within The Pound, within the
Cookham Conservation Area. The site currently comprises a modest two storey
building with a pitched roof, fronting onto The Pound. The building has been extended
and there is a small extension on the side and single storey extensions to the rear. To
the rear of the building there is also a patio area and a grassed lawn. The site is
accessed directly from The Pound and is served by a gravelled car park to the west
(side) of the building. Immediately abutting the eastern and northern boundaries of
the site is Poundside, a predominantly two storey detached dwelling. The application
building is currently occupied by Spencers, a restaurant, and is surrounded by
residential properties on all sides
The Proposal
2.
The application seeks planning permission to erect a single storey rear extension with
roof and wall mounted extract ducting, following demolition of the existing toilet block,
metal fire escape and covered walkway. The application is very similar to that which
was previously proposed under application 06/02446 and refused permission contrary
to the advice of your Officers, although slightly smaller.
3.
The extension would be sited at the rear of the building and would provide a new
kitchen and extended dining area. The extensions would facilitate the internal
reorganisation of the building and would result in the existing kitchen becoming staff
facilities and dining space.
4.
The extension would be single storey with a pitched roof where it is at right angles
with the existing building and a flat roof in the angle between the existing and
proposed extensions. The dimensions of the extension are provided below and those
dimensions within brackets are those which were proposed in refused application
06/02446. Overall the extension would have a maximum depth of 12.1m (12.7m),
staggered to a depth of 5.6m (5.6m) where it is closest to the boundary with
Poundside. The extension would have a width of 12.2m (12.6m). The pitched roof
part of the building would be 4.2m (5.0m) in height to the ridge and the flat roof part of
the extension would be 2.9m (3.1m) in height to the top of the parapet wall.
5.
Extract ducting would be located across the flat roof part of the building and a vertical
duct would rise up the rear wall of the existing building protruding 2.2m (2.4m) above
the parapet wall, resulting in the ducting extending 0.7m above the eaves of the
existing building.
Principal Planning Issues
6.
The main issues for consideration as part of this application are:
(i) Principle of extending the building and impact upon the character and appearance
of the Conservation Area
(ii) Impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties
(iii) Car parking and impact upon highway safety
(iv) Impact upon area of archaeological potential
(v) Developer contributions towards associated infrastructure
PVWRCM
88
Principle of extending the building and impact upon the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area
7.
The site is located within the settlement of Cookham within a Conservation Area.
Within the fomer the Local Plan accepts the principle of extending existing facilities
such as public houses and restaurants subject to the impact on the surrounding area,
living conditions of nearby occupiers and highway safety being satisfactory. Within
Conservation Areas, development proposals should preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
8.
The building is a significant non-listed building within the Conservation Area and is
highly visible within The Pound. Whilst the frontage is extremely attractive the existing
side extension of the kitchen is rather unattractive and untidy, with the addition of
vents in the later part of the twentieth century.
9.
The scheme would provide a traditionally detailed kitchen extension which would
mask the restaurant extension at the rear of the building. The provision of detailing
with the appearance of bricked up windows in the side elevation of the extension is
considered to be appropriate. Furthermore the alterations at the side of the building,
particularly the removal of the fire escape and the vents would be an improvement to
the appearance of the building within the Conservation Area.
10.
It is noted that the previous application, although considered acceptable by Officers,
was refused by the Development Control Panel partially due to its height, bulk, depth
and overall scale and the resultant harm to the Conservation Area. The proposed
scheme has reduced the height and depth of the extension reduces the bulk and
mass of the building to a small degree from that previously proposed.
Notwithstanding the previous decision by the Panel, Officers remain of the view that
the scheme would improve the appearance of the site and, in terms of the changes to
the built form, the proposal is considered to represent an enhancement to the
appearance of the Conservation Area.
11.
The proposed treatment of the existing car park is simple, retaining and repairing the
existing tarmac surface at the front and retaining the existing gravelled surface in
those parts behind the line of the building: this is appropriate for the Conservation
Area. Whilst it would be ideal to provide more planting along the front of the site in the
form of a low hedge to screen cars, there is insufficient space between the boundary
wall and the car parking spaces to plant a hedge and the car park would be no more
visible within the Conservation Area as a result of the development than at present.
The existing planting bed by the front wall would be retained and planting in this area
would help to soften the appearance of the existing car park to a small degree.
12.
Overall the proposed extensions and alterations are considered to enhance the
appearance of the Conservation Area, and as such comply with the relevant policies
of the Adopted Local Plan.
Impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties
13.
The closest dwelling to the site, and that most likely to be directly affected by the
proposal, is Poundside. The dwelling to the rear, Paddock End, and that to the west,
Kings Cottage, are too far from the site of the proposed extensions and alterations to
be affected directly by the development to a material degree given that the site is
already in use as a restaurant and the car park already exists.
14.
Poundside comprises an extended detached ‘L’ shaped two storey house, with some
of these extensions sited along the boundary of the application site. The house wraps
around part of the northern and eastern elevations of Spencers where, on the
northern elevation, Spencers immediately abuts the boundary of Poundside’s small
PVWRCM
89
courtyard. This courtyard is around 1.6m in width and separates the buildings with
both Poundside and Spencers having windows facing directly across the courtyard.
The flank elevations of Spencers and Poundside are even closer together on the
eastern boundary of the application site with less than 1m separating the buildings.
15.
Whilst the proposed extensions would project by nearly 13m from the rear wall of the
main building, they have been designed to stagger away from the boundary with
Poundside. At the closest point to the boundary the extension is only 5.6m in depth,
whilst the angle of the boundary is such that the dining extension would be around
3.1m from the boundary where it is at its greatest depth.
16.
Poundside has single storey flat roof buildings immediately abutting the boundary of
the site with Spencers, for a distance of over 11m. Poundside would have a greater
depth adjacent to the boundary, than the extension currently proposed at Spencers
and would extend beyond the rear elevation of the proposed extension. At the point
closest to Poundside the proposed extension is single storey in height, with a parapet
height of 2.9m, which is 0.2m lower than the previously proposed height of 3.1m. The
pitched roof part of the extension would be located just under 7m from the boundary
of the site. It is acknowledged that the proposed extension would be visible from the
rear garden of Poundside, however due to the relationship of the extension with this
house, as set out above, it is not considered that the proposed extension would have
a dominating or overbearing impact upon the occupiers of this property, such that
objections to its visual impact upon Poundside could reasonably be sustained. The
Panel did not object to the impact of the extension upon Poundside when refusing
application 06/02446
17.
Currently a window and a roof light in the side elevation of Poundside, serving a
staircase, overlook the rear of Spencers. The proposed extensions would be
separated from these windows by the courtyard between the properties and would be
about 8m at the closest. Bearing in mind the purpose of these windows, the form and
bulk of the extensions are not such that they would result in an unacceptable
relationship. The Panel did not object to the impact of the development upon
Poundside when refusing application 06/02446.
18.
The proposed extract and ventilation ducting would be sited across the flat roofed
part of the extension. The current plans show the ducting protruding slightly above
the parapet wall, which would mean it would be visible from the patio of the
application site and from Poundside. The applicants have advised that the parapet
wall is to be increased in height back to its originally proposed height of 3.1m, to
which no objections were raised. A revised plan is to be submitted showing this. This
alteration will mean that the equipment on the roof is shielded from view by the
parapet wall around the extension. The only visible part of the ducting will be the flue
that would rise up the rear wall of the building. Whilst this flue will be visible from
Poundside it is not considered that it would have a significant adverse effect upon the
living conditions of its occupiers.
19.
The existing ventilation for the kitchen at this site is on the front elevation of the
building and the proposed location of the extract system will bring it in closer
proximity to adjoining residential properties than the current situation. The
Environmental Protection Officer has been consulted on the application, whilst their
comments have not been received at the time of writing this report, previously no
objections were raised and he was satisfied that the relationship would be
satisfactory, subject to conditions being imposed to secure satisfactory emissions
from the equipment. In view of this, whilst the concerns from residents are noted, it is
considered that the impact of the flue upon the living conditions of local residents can
be controlled by condition. This is consistent with the view reached by the Panel
when considering application 06/02446.
PVWRCM
90
Car parking and impact upon highway safety
20.
The current car park is gravelled and is not marked out. The application proposes to
formalise the car parking area by defining the car parking bays using inset brick
corners. The formalisation of the parking bays would result in the provision of a total
of 31 car parking spaces, of which two would be defined for disabled users.
21.
The Development Control Panel refused the earlier application as it was considered
that there was insufficient car parking for the likely intensity of use, especially
considering the likely use of the garden area as a significant area for additional
dining. The Highway Authority did not share this view.
22.
The applicants have commissioned a Transport Statement which concludes that
there are no highway safety grounds to refuse the application, the proposal fully
accords with PPG13, the proposal is fully in accordance with the Council’s Adopted
Policies, there is no foundation to the concerns likely to be raised by local residents
and there are no transportation reasons to refuse this application. With regard to the
specific concerns raised by the Development Control Panel in respect of the previous
application that the outside dining area will be additional space, thereby resulting in a
parking shortfall it is advised by the applicants consultants that the outside dining
area is more of an alternative for the internal dining area than an additional facility.
Furthermore this area is likely to be used in sunny weather when people are more
likely to walk to the site than use the car, potentially resulting in a reduction in parking
demand.
23.
The comments of the Highway Authority on this document are awaited and will be
reported as late observations. However it should be noted that the Highway Authority
did not object to the earlier application, which was for a slightly larger extension. In
addition there are benefits arising from the formal delineation of parking bays, two of
which will be for disabled persons.
Impact upon area of archaeological potential
24.
The site is within an area of medium to high archaeological potential. It lies 300 to
400m south west of the centre of the medieval village of Cookham. Located 200m to
300m to the south and south east lie medieval manors and the site is surrounded by
16th, 17th and 18th century buildings.
25.
Weighing the site of the development against the archaeological potential, the
Council’s archaeological advisors consider that a condition being imposed on any
permission requiring an archaeological watching brief to be undertaken would be
sufficient to safeguard archaeological interests.
Developer contributions to associated infrastructure
26.
PVWRCM
The development would result in additional employees and an increased impact on
public open space, indoor recreation, library services, economic development and
highways. In line with the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents the
proposal generates a requirement for contributions towards public open space
(£4,680) with the contribution being directed towards land purchase / lease and pitch
provision in Maidenhead area and or northern parishes; indoor sport provision
(£1,477) being directed towards Magnet Leisure centre pool and hall improvements;
library services (£90), with the contribution being directed towards Cookham Library;
economic development (£617.10) with the contributions being directed towards
economic development initiatives including training and skills development in the
Cookham and Maidenhead area, and traffic and road safety improvements (£tbc),
with the contribution being directed towards traffic highway improvements on the
B4447 Cookham Road. The applicant has been requested to enter into a legal
91
agreement to secure these contributions. Subject to a satisfactory signed agreement
being provided the proposal would comply with the relevant Policies in this respect.
Other Material Considerations
27.
The flood maps provided by the Environment Agency identify that the south eastern
corner of the site, including part of the existing building and the hard standing in front
of the building in the location of the access and driveway is within flood zone 2, which
is land with a 1 in 1000 year risk of flooding (medium risk). However the site of the
extension lies outside this area and will have no impact upon the area liable to flood.
In view of this there is no conflict with Policy F1.
28.
It is noted that it has been stated by local residents that the site notice has not been
displayed at the site. For clarification the Planning Officer displayed a site notice on
the telegraph pole outside the site on the 15th March 2007.
Conclusion
29.
The proposed development is considered to represent an enhancement to the
appearance of the Conservation Area. Due to the relationship of the extensions with
the adjoining site it is considered that it would not be reasonable to object to the
impact of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of this dwelling.
30.
Whilst some of the areas of objection raised by the neighbours have been dealt with
in the report, there are a number of points which require an input from other Officers,
including the Environmental Health Officer. Further information with regard to these
issues will be set out in the late observations. Building Regulations and the Party Wall
Act are not relevant to consideration of the planning application.
31.
Subject to the Highway Authority, Conservation Officer and Environmental Protection
Officer confirming that the changes from application 06/02446 have not introduced
new grounds for objection, and the completion of a legal agreement to secure related
infrastructure contributions, the proposed development is considered to accord with
the relevant policies of the Adopted Local Plan and a grant of permission is
recommended, as qualified below.
Recommendation:
That the application be deferred and
authority delegated to the Head of Planning
to:
i) Grant planning permission subject to the
following conditions and other appropriate
conditions required by the Highway
Authority and Environmental Protection
Officer and subject to the prior completion of
a unilateral undertaking; or
ii) Refuse planning permission if a unilateral
undertaking is not satisfactorily completed
by the 29th April 2007.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
92
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PVWRCM
A sample panel of brickwork showing the proposed brick, method of bonding, colour
of mortar and type of pointing to be used shall be prepared on site and approved by
the Local Planning Authority in writing before the commencement of this extension.
The work shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect and preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA1, CA2 Structure Plan EN4.
No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used on the roof
of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development(s) shall be carried out and
maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect and preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA1, CA2 Structure Plan EN4.
No development shall take place until samples and/or a specification of all the
finishing materials to be used in any hard surfacing on the application site have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter
undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To protect and preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area.
Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA1, CA2 Structure Plan EN4.
C66A Finish slab levels
The noise levels on all boundaries of the site shall not as a result of this development
exceed International Standards Organisation (I.S.O) Noise Rating 45 between the
hours of 07.00 - 23.00 and 35 between 23.00 - 07.00 when plotted on an I.S.O. Noise
Rating Curve Chart.
Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and prevent nuisance arising from
noise and to accord with the Local Plan Policy NAP3.
EH03 Odour Control
No development shall take place until the applicant has secured an implemented an
archaeological watching brief as part of a phased programme of archaeological work
in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to an
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:The site lies within an area of archaeological potential and to ensure
preservation 'by record' of any surviving remains.
93
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward
Reference No:
07/00638/FULL
Full
Proposal:
Agenda No. 19
Location:
Installation of 1 x 1200mm and 1 x 300mm diameter
transmission dishes and ancillary development on roof
Nicholsons House Nicholsons Walk Maidenhead SL6 1LQ
Applicant:
Vodafone
Agent:
Daly International
Date Received:
8th March 2007
Case Officer:
Peter Barron
Recommendation:
PERM
Planning Context:
Maidenhead Town Centre
Adjacent to MTC Conservation Area
Sustainable Development Implications:
Improved telecommunications
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – DG1, CA2, TEL1; Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Interpretation of
Policy TEL1’ (2000)
Structure Plan – EN4, DP5
2.
Previous Relevant Decisions
07/00128/FULL Construction of an additional Granted
floor (8th) over existing flat roof
to
form
additional
office
floorspace (Class B1)
3.
8th
2007
March
Neighbour Notification Responses
None received at time of writing report.
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
1.
The application site relates to a 29m high tower block comprising seven floors of
office space above the Nicholson’s Shopping Centre within Maidenhead town centre.
The tower is located approximately 35m south of the principal shopping centre
entrance to High Street, 70m west of the centre’s entrance to Brock Lane, 90m east
of the junction of Nicholson’s Lane with King Street and 130m to the north of
Broadway. The tower is clad in glass and the rooftop accommodates stairwell/lift
shaft projections to heights of between 2.5m and 4m above main roof level, together
with plant & machinery.
2.
The block falls outside the Maidenhead town centre Conservation Area, which
incorporates property in High Street and nearby Queen Street.
PVWRCM
94
The Proposal
3.
Full planning permission is sought for the provision of two telecommunications dishes
on the roof of Nicholson House. The larger of the two dishes referred to as D7 on the
submitted plans, being 1.2m in diameter, would be sited 2m back from the roof edge
to the north elevation of the building and would be mounted on a pole to a height of
2m above the roof; the 0.3m diameter dish referred to as D9 on the submitted plans
would be sited 1.5m back from the east elevation of the building mounted on
brackets, fixed to an sting steelwork support, to a height of 3.8m above the roof.
Associated development to route and house cabling on the roof is also proposed.
4.
The two dishes the subject of this application would supplement existing equipment
(four dishes, one of which is to be removed, and 12 antennas) and other dishes to be
installed as ‘permitted development’ (4 x 0.3m diameter dishes and 1 x 1.2m dishes).
Planning permission is required for the additional dishes as the aggregate size of
these would exceed the aggregate size of dishes automatically permitted by Part 24
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as
amended).
5.
The applicant has advised that it is seeking to upgrade transmission equipment on
some of its sites in order to improve the quality and reliability of services. The
proposed installation is required to this end, specifically to establish point to point
contact, and that the siting of the dishes at this location is critical.
Principal Planning Issues
Telecommunications Development Policy
6.
Local Plan Policy TEL1 states the Council will only grant planning permission for
telecommunications development subject inter alia to consideration of site sharing,
preference to the use of existing buildings and structures, siting and visual impact.
The Council’s supplementary planning guidance ‘Interpretation of Policy TEL1’
(2000) provides amplification in relation to each of these criteria; it advises:
(i) That applicants will need to demonstrate that there are no existing suitable sites for
sharing, but it is recognised that site sharing can lead to increased visual intrusion;
(ii) That visual considerations will include height, design, colour and materials; siting
will include consideration of height in relation to the surrounding area, topography,
skyline/horizon, prominence (long and short views), the relationship of the site with
designated areas and existing masts/structures, relationship to residential property
and screening.
Site Sharing
7.
The proposed installation would utilise a site already occupied by Vodafone on an
existing building. In so doing the proposal already avoids the need for a new mast or
streetworks installation and, in so doing, it is not considered that there is any need to
pursue an assessment of other site sharing opportunities.
Visual Impact
8.
PVWRCM
Although the 1.2m diameter dish would add to the amount of equipment visible on
the roof of this building, its siting back from the north-facing elevation and limited
height above roof level would, it is considered, mitigate its impact in immediate views
from street level in the High Street. In more long distant views of Nicholson House
this dish would be viewed in the context of the existing rooftop equipment cabin,
which has a height of 1.9m above roof level, and other existing/proposed
telecommunications equipment.
95
9.
The 0.3m diameter dish, to the eastern end of the roof, would be located closer to the
edge and higher above roof level. However in immediate views from street level this
part of the building is largely obscured by surrounding buildings and, as above,
where glimpses do occur and from more distant vantage points, this small dish would
also be seen in the context of other rooftop structures/equipment.
10.
Having regard to height, siting and context it is therefore considered that the proposal
would have a satisfactory impact upon the appearance of this building and the
skyline of the town centre. It is not considered that the two additional dishes
proposed, when balanced against the operator’s need for additional equipment and
the desirability of accommodating this on an existing site, would add so significantly
to the amount of apparatus on Nicholson House as to justify refusal on this ground.
11.
In terms of colour/materials it is considered that such equipment, when seen against
the sky, is best left in its galvanised/pale grey colour. No conditions with regard to
colour/finish are therefore recommended in this instance. Neither is any screening
proposed or considered necessary.
12.
It is not considered that the ancillary rooftop development, to route cable trays to
facilitate the proposed installation, would have any material impact upon appearance
of the building.
Maidenhead Town Centre Conservation Area
13.
Given the siting of Nicholson House back from the High Street, the context of existing
equipment on the roof and the scale/siting of the dishes proposed, it is not considered
that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the nearby
Maidenhead Town Centre Conservation Area. To this extent the setting of the
Conservation Area could be said to be preserved by the proposal.
Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers
14.
The application site sits within the block of development bounded by High Street, to
the north, Broadway to the south, Queen Street to the east and King Street to the
west. The block is dominated by commercial town centre uses at ground floor level
with mixed residential and commercial uses at upper floor level. In the context of the
existing equipment and having regard to the size and siting of the dishes proposed, it
is not considered that there would be any harm to the outlook of any surrounding
property nor the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers.
Other Material Considerations
Health Effects
15.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications (2001) reiterates the
Government’s position that “…it is the Government’s firm view that the planning
system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central
Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public
health. In the Government’s view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the
ICNIRP (International Commission of Non Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines
for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in
processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider
further the health aspects and concerns about them”.
16.
The applicant has submitted with the application a declaration of conformity with
ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. Supporting information submitted with the
application also clarifies that, when determining compliance, the emissions from all
equipment on the site is taken into account.
PVWRCM
96
17.
In these circumstances no objection on health grounds is raised.
Relationship to Planning Permission 07/00128/FULL
18.
Planning permission for the construction of an additional floor to Nicholson House, to
provide increased office floorspace, was granted on 8th March 2007 following the
completion of a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990. The permission is subject to a condition controlling future
telecommunications developments on the extension, to ensure a more co-ordinated
approach (the approved extension makes provision for plant and equipment within a
recessed area of its roof) pursuant to the enhancement of the town centre and
conservation area.
19.
Although permission for the extension has been granted, development has not
commenced. The existence of this permission does not, therefore, preclude the
approval of the installation now sought; however an informative drawing the
applicant’s attention to planning permission 07/00128/FULL is suggested.
Conclusion
20.
The proposal would facilitate the upgrading of this installation on an existing site. The
impact on visual amenity, neighbouring occupiers and the setting of the Maidenhead
Town Centre Conservation Area would be acceptable. It is therefore recommended
that permission be granted.
Recommendation:
Grant permission, subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
Informative(s)
1
PVWRCM
The applicant is advised that Planning Permission 07/00128/FULL grants permission
for an extension to Nicholson House to form an additional floor of office space.
Condition 5 of the permission controls development on the extension that would
otherwise be permitted under Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Early consultation with the local
planning authority about the resiting of the equipment, in the event of the
implementation of planning permission 07/00128/FULL, is therefore recommended.
97
Date of Meeting: 11th April 2007
Reference No:
Proposal:
Parish/Ward:
Ward
07/00720/FULL
Full
Boyn
Hill Agenda No. 20
Location:
Construction of three 3-bedroom linked detached houses and
garages
Land Adjacent 40 Altwood Road Maidenhead SL6 4PY
Applicant:
Mr And Mrs Griggs
Agent:
Fox Curtis Murray
Date Received:
16th March 2007
Case Officer:
Sheila Bowen
Recommendation:
DLA
Planning Context:
Excluded Settlement
Sustainable Development Implications:
More efficient use of urban land
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – H10, H11, DG1, T5, P4, N5, N6, IMP1, R3
Structure Plan – DP4, DP5, H3
Submission Core Strategy CS20
2.
3.
Previous Relevant Decisions
04/01774
5 x 3 bed linked detached houses following demolition of no.40.
Permitted 16.5.2005
07/00129
3 x 3-bed linked detached houses
Refused 8.3.2007 as a gated community, highway danger resulting
from gates, and lack of a S106 agreement for infrastructure
contributions
The Highways Authority
No objections subject to conditions
4.
Tree Officer
No objections subject to conditions.
5.
Neighbour notification responses
None at time of writing, any received will be reported as late observations.
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
PVWRCM
98
1.
The site comprises 0.09 hectares and is located to the northern side of Altwood Road,
adjoined by residential properties to the east, west and south, and St Edmund
Campion Roman Catholic school and church to the north. Several trees exist on site,
especially to the front of the property, located along the road frontage. Immediately
adjacent to number 40 runs a small road which provides vehicular access to St
Edmund Campion Primary School and church, and also to Altwood School, located to
the east of the site.
The Proposal
2.
Planning permission is sought for the construction of 3 three bedroom linked
detached dwellings, adjacent to number 40 Altwood Road, a detached four bedroom
dwelling. A new access would be created, providing access to each dwelling via a
small internal road to the front of the dwellings. Each dwelling would have two car
parking spaces, one within a garage. This application is an alternative to 04/01774
on a wider site, which involved the demolition of number 40 and the construction of 5
similar link detached houses across the wider site. In view of the extant permission,
the current restraint of residential development would not apply. The proposal
includes the stopping up of a former temporary footpath (now closed) adjacent to
number 44, which St Edmund Campion Catholic Primary School has confirmed in a
letter is now surplus to requirements, as it cuts across a dangerous car park.
Principal Planning Issues
Impact upon the character of the area
3.
PPS3 'Housing' states that new residential developments should make better use of
urban land, and should be located in sustainable areas, close to existing services and
facilities and good public transport links. PPS3 indicates that in order to achieve
more sustainable use of existing urban land, new residential developments should
achieve a residential density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. This however,
should not be at the expense of the character of the area to which the proposed
development relates. This is a view that is advocated by Policy H11 of the Local Plan
which states that in established residential areas, planning permission will not be
granted for schemes which introduce a scale or density of new development which
would be incompatible with, or cause damage to, the character and amenity of the
area. In addition to this, Policy DG1 of the Local Plan states that harm should not be
caused to the character of the area through development which is cramped, or which
results in the loss of important features that contribute to that character. The
proposed development would result in a residential density of 33.4 dwellings per
hectare. This is within the lower end of the range of the guidelines of PPS3 and would
not be harmful to the relatively spacious area.
4.
Altwood Road consists of a variety of different types and design of dwellings although
most within close proximity to the site occupy relatively spacious plots. In their
supporting design statement, the applicants state that the proposed development has
been designed to be in keeping with the others houses in Altwood Road in terms of
scale and materials. The three houses would be constructed of brick, and would
have forward facing gable ends, with the garages forming a link at ground floor level.
Each house would have a small conservatory at the rear, while the frontages would
have a square bay and projecting gabled wc at ground floor level, linked by a small
pitched roof.
5.
The proposed dwellings have a ridge height of 7.9m. They would be located in line
with the building line, well back from the road frontage and therefore, would sit
comfortably within the street scene. The three houses proposed are comparable with
the five of the extant planning permission in terms of location on the site, bulk and
PVWRCM
99
general appearance. It is considered that the design of the houses would accord with
policy DG1 of the Local Plan.
6.
The proposed development would have a low wall along the front boundary of the
site, to allow the soft landscaping along the front of the site to be clearly seen from
the road.
Neighbouring residential amenities
7.
No residential properties are located to the rear of the site, and the most western
proposed dwelling would be located 1m from the boundary and 2.1m away from
number 44. This is considered to be an adequate degree of separation to prevent
any adverse loss of light, or resulting overbearing appearance. The rear of the
nearest proposed house to number 44 would project 4.7m further back than number
44, but 2.7m of that would be composed of a single storey conservatory. It is not
considered that this would cause harm to the amenities of the neighbouring property.
8.
The proposed dwelling adjacent to number 44 would have one ground floor habitable
room window which would face towards the western boundary, and one small first
floor window which would serve a bathroom. With adequate boundary treatment and
the inclusion of obscure glazing to the bathroom window, it is not considered that any
significant overlooking of number 44 would result.
9.
In relation to number 40, the eastern most house on the site would be sited 2.5m off
the common boundary and a total separation of 4.8m between the existing
neighbouring and proposed dwellings would be maintained. The garage to the new
house would be sited adjacent to the boundary with number 50 and would project
3.3m beyond the rear elevation of that neighbouring property; however in view of the
siting of number 40 away from the boundary and the height of the garage (3m at the
mid-point of a monopitch roof) it is not considered that there would be any harm to the
amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. As above in respect of number 44, subject
to control of boundary treatment and glazing it is not considered that there would be
any harm to privacy.
Highway and tree considerations
10.
Each dwelling is provided with a single garage, with a car parking space in front. This
level of car parking provision is similar to the previous application and was then
acceptable to the Highway Authority, although, as stated, it would be preferred that
the garages would measure 3m x 6m. It is unlikely that the width of 3m can be
achieved within the development proposed. As the shortfall is minimal, 0.5m in each
direction and is comparable to the extant planning permission no objection in this
regard is raised.
11.
In order to achieve the required visibility splays, a number of trees and shrubs will
need to be removed from the front of the site. The Tree Officer has no objection to
this, and subject to appropriate mitigation measures and a landscaping scheme, there
would be no significant adverse impact upon the streetscene. It should also be noted
that the scheme retains a number of the more significant trees to the site frontage,
including a mature Lime, and with protection during construction these will continue to
contribute positively to the character and amenity of the locality.
Provision of contributions and planning obligations
12.
PVWRCM
Developer contributions would be required towards community infrastructure as
follows:
100
-
-
On-site public open space in accordance with Policy R3 of the RBWM Local
Plan, or, where appropriate, a financial contribution in lieu of such provision.
(£11232)
A financial contribution towards indoor sports facilities. (£3543)
A
financial
contribution
towards
education
infrastructure
improvements.(£7628.64)
A financial contribution towards community and youth facilities in the
Borough.(£1200)
A financial contribution towards library services. (£1611)
A financial contribution towards highways and public transport. (£6896)
A financial contribution towards waste disposal. (£225)
Total £32335.64
13.
The applicant has been made aware of the above requirements, but a satisfactory
unilateral undertaking has not been signed at time of writing to secure this funding.
Conclusion
14.
There is an extant planning permission to develop the site and the proposal would
comply with the relevant policies of the Local Plan. Subject to completing an
undertaking to secure the infrastructure contributions the application will accord with
all relevant development plan policies.
Recommendation
Defer and delegate authority to the
Head of Planning to:
i) Grant planning permission subject
to the following conditions and the
prior completion of a satisfactory
unilateral undertaking to secure the
above infrastructure contributions; or
ii) Refuse permission if a satisfactory
unilateral obligation has not been
completed by 9th May 2007.
Conditions and Reasons
^CR;;
1
2
3
4
5
6
PVWRCM
C01A Commencement - full application - 3 year
C09 Samples of materials
C30A Rem of PD Rights - Res Class A,B & E(A)
C38 No further windows at first floor - flank - dwellings
C46 Existing trees to be retained
Prior to any equipment, machinery or materials being brought onto the site, details of
the measures to protect, during construction, the trees shown to be retained on the
approved landscaping plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: fencing, any ground levels
changes, trenching, soakaways, drainage and other utilities runs, construction
materials storage, cement mixing, site compound siting and vehicles/machinery in
relation to root protection areas. The protection measures shall be implemented and
maintained until the completion of all construction work.
101
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Reason: To protect trees which contribute to the visual amenities of the site and
surrounding area. Relevant Policies - Local Plan DG1, N6, IMP1.
C32 Walls/fencing details
C64 Landscaping Scheme
C64A Replacement Planting
HA04 Access Construction - details
HA15 Bonded Surface Access - 5
HA24 Parking as Approved Drawing
HA30 Garage Retention
A temporary parking area and turning space shall be provided and maintained,
concurrently with the development of the site, in a position to be agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority, until such time as the approved site layout has been
constructed, and immediately thereafter removed.
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities
during the construction period in order to minimise the incidence of roadside parking
which would be a danger to other road users. Relevant Policies - Local Plan P4.
C35 Window fixed-open top light with obscure - flank - dwellings
Informative(s)
1
2
3
4
5
PVWRCM
HI04
HI06
HI29
HI07
HI22
Highway Licence
Damage to footways and verges
No Equipment/Materials On Public Highway
Damage to the Highway
Incidental Works Licence
102
Reference No:
07/00216/TPO
Proposal:
Consent to fell a Weeping willow
Location:
‘Tourmaline’, The Street, Shurlock Row
Applicant:
Reni Stefanova Hodgson
Agent:
N/a
Date Received:
25th January 2007
Case Officer:
Don Newling
Recommend:
REF
Planning Context:
Conservation Area
Tree Preservation Order
Sustainable Development Implications:
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1.
Main Relevant Policies
Local Plan – N5
2.
3.
Previous Relevant Decisions
Reference
Description
Decision
Date
97/31168
Notification to fell tree
in Conservation Area
Object so TPO
served
April 1997
TPO 21 of 1997
Objection to TPO
TPO confirmed
without
amendment
August 1997
98/32622
Application to prune
Willow
Approved
17 June 1998
01/37417
Application to fell
Willow
Refused
17 Sept 2001
The Highway Authority
None
4.
Neighbour Notification Responses
Petition supporting application signed by 6 residents (covering 5 properties).
Letter of support from regular Postman
Letter of support “if the actual and potential damage are confirmed”
2 letters objecting to application.
PVWRCM
103
5.
Parish Council
Support this application but wish to stress that careful consideration should be given
to the species and maturity of the replacement tree in view of its prominent position in
the street scene. If possible they would like to be consulted before a final decision is
made regarding the replacement.
REMARKS
The Site and Surroundings
1.
The Weeping Willow is located in the front garden of ‘Tourmaline’, The Street, Shurlock
Row, which is within a Conservation Area. The tree is in a prominent location and is
visible when approaching it from either direction down the main road. There is a Public
House almost directly opposite the tree/property. Many of the surrounding properties
have mature trees within their front gardens but there are also several properties with
no trees between the buildings and the main road. The surrounding area is a typical
rural village setting.
The Proposal
2.
To fell the Weeping Willow and replace it with a Mulberry (or any tree suggested by the
Council) within the front garden.
Principal Planning Issues
3.
The tree is subject to a Tree Preservation Order, which was served, to prevent the
tree’s removal when a notice was served on the Council in 1997, as required under the
Conservation Area legislation.
4.
The objection to the TPO, which cited the same reasons as those now being given in
the application to remove the tree, was over-ruled by the Development Control Panel
Committee when the Order was confirmed without amendment in 1997.
5.
The tree is in good health and provides significant visual amenity to the surrounding
area.
6.
Apart from the damage to the driveway, which the tree roots may have been a
contributory factor, no evidence has been provided to support the claims of potential
damage to surrounding buildings or the drains.
Other Material Considerations
7.
The existing driveway appears to be quite old and in need of some repair (irrespective
of any damage the tree roots may have caused) and repairing the drive would provide
an opportunity to investigate whether or not some root pruning could be undertaken to
reduce the risk of future damage.
8.
Replacement of the existing drive with a flexible surface could also prevent future
problems. It should be noted that the existing tarmac drive appears to have been laid
on top of an old concrete drive which would account for why a “step” has occurred
(resulting in a potential trip hazard) – the removal of this old concrete surface would
increase the flexibility of the driveway and significantly reduce the risk of trip hazards
occurring in the future.
9.
No evidence has been provided to support the claim that the tree roots have damaged
the drains and blocked them. Tree roots cannot detect water within a sealed and leak
proof pipe and can only enter pipes that have already been fractured or leaking water,
PVWRCM
104
unless the pipe is physically displaced by the root expansion (annual growth of roots) of
main structural roots. Drains can and should be repaired in ways that ensure no future
problems can arise with roots otherwise even if the tree is removed other roots could
enter through the same fault.
10.
No evidence has been provided to support the claim that damage to nearby buildings is
either occurring or foreseeable and in view of the species of tree, its size, age, the
proximity of nearby buildings and the fact that no damage appears to have occurred in
the past (particularly during the drought periods that have resulted in peaks in tree
related subsidence claims) the need to remove the tree has not been demonstrated. It
should also be noted that allowing a protected tree to be removed without providing
sufficient supporting evidence would set a precedent that could lead to similar
applications and further mature tree loss in the Borough.
11.
The Council has not objected to the willow tree being crown reduced in the past. It is
considered allowing a reduction, back to the points of previous reduction, is in line with
accepted arboricultural practice for this particular tree.
Conclusion
12.
There are, currently, insufficient grounds to justify the removal of this tree.
Recommendation:
The application to remove the tree is refused and a
consent is given to reduce the crown to the previous
pruning points.
Reasons:
The tree is of high public visual amenity, being situated in a prominent position at the
front of Tourmaline where it can be easily seen in both directions along this section of
The Street, enhancing the appearance of the village. In the absence of evidence to
show the tree is imminently about to cause, or is actually causing damage to the
buildings and drains, it is considered insufficient justification has been given to remove
the tree. Without removing a section of the damaged driveway it is inconclusive the
roots of the willow are causing damage to the driveway. Should it be shown the roots
are the cause, then a flexible driveway construction could be implemented which
should not be vulnerable to damage in the same way. Also some minor root pruning
could potentially be carried out, though this would be subject to a further application.
PVWRCM
105
PLANNING APPEALS RECEIVED
26th February - 27th March 2007
MAIDENHEAD
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
DOE Ref: T0355/A/07/2040207/NWF
07/60016/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02248
Comments Due: 26th April 2007
9th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Change of use of two storey extension to form a two bedroom end of terrace dwelling
(retrospective)
1 Switchback Close Maidenhead SL6 7QD
Furze Platt Ward
Mr I Culora c/o Agent: Direct Planning Limited Riverbank House 95-97 High Street St
Mary Cray Orpington Kent
BR5 3NH
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
DOE Ref: T0355/A/07/2040524/NWF
07/60020/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02302
Comments Due: 2nd May 2007
14th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Retention of buildings and mobile home for support of agricultural enterprise
Buttons Mushroom Farm Fifield Road Fifield Maidenhead SL6 2PG
Bray Parish Council
C J Braddick c/o Agent: Geo-Plan Consultants Ltd 10 Magisters Court Watford Road
Croxley Green WD3 3SZ
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
DOE Ref: APP/T0355/F/07/2039294
07/60028/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02347
Comments Due: 20th April 2007
12th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Consent to erect a single storey rear link extension (retrospective)
2 Oldfield View High Street Bray Maidenhead SL6 2AG
Bray Parish Council
Mr G Lloyd c/o Agent: Avanti Design P O Box 294 High Wycombe Bucks HP10 8RS
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
DOE Ref: T0355/A.07/2039555/NWF
07/60011/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02446
Comments Due: 20th April 2007
1st March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Single storey rear extension with roof and wall mounted extract ducting, following
demolition of toilet block, metal fire escape and covered walkway
Spencers The Pound Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9QE
Cookham Parish Council
The Restaurant Group Plc c/o Agent: Farrell Bass Prichard 14 Linden Square Harefield
Middlesex UB9 6TQ
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
DOE Ref: T0355/A/07/2039736/NWF
07/60013/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02632
Comments Due: 23rd April 2007
5th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Formation of hardstanding for horse boxes and spectators vehicles
Fifield House Farm Oakley Green Road Oakley Green Windsor SL4 4QF
Bray Parish Council
Tony Bennett Fifield House Farm Oakley Green Road Windsor SL4 4QF
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
DOE Ref: TBA
07/60026/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02590
Comments Due: TBA
22nd March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Single carport to rear (retrospective)
2 Elm Cottages Holyport Street Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2JU
Bray Parish Council
Edward O Donnell 2 Elm Cottages Holyport Street Holyport Berks SL6 2JU
PVWRCM
106
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
Appeal Ref. No.:
Date Received:
Type:
Description:
Location:
Parish/Ward:
Applicant:
PVWRCM
DOE Ref: T0355/A/07/2039600/WF
07/60014/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02946
Comments Due: 1st May 2007
6th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Written Representations
Construction of a three bedroom linked detached house with garage together with a further
garage for 'Almora'
Land At Almora Station Road Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9BU
Cookham Parish Council
Mr P Harris And Ms R George c/o Agent: Mrs Leonie Dukes 93 Hampton Road Hampton
Hill Hampton Middlesex TW12 1JQ
DOE Ref: T0355/A/07/2040292/NWF
07/60022/REF Planning Ref. No.: 06/02994
Comments Due: 30th April 2007
16th March 2007
Appeal Type:
Refusal
Hearing
Erection of 2 x 4 bedroom and 1 x 5 bedroom detached houses and garages following
demolition of existing dwellings and outbuildings
Land At Cedar Villa And Cedar Lodge And The Hollies Hawthorn Hill Bracknell
Bray Parish Council
Ardgowan Homes c/o Agent: MSC Planning Limited Beech House 259 Amersham Road
Hazlemere High Wycombe HP15 7QW
107
APPEAL DECISIONS REPORT
27th February - 27th March 2007
Area Team: Maidenhead
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
PVWRCM
DC Ref:
Macdonalds Hotels Plc
02/38990/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2025343/NWF
06/00192/REF
The Compleat Angler Hotel Bisham Road Marlow Buckinghamshire SL7
1RG
Two storey and single storey extensions and alterations to include leisure
club meeting room and seven bedrooms and alterations to existing car
park plus new car parking.
Refuse
Appeal Withdrawn
2nd March 2007
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs S James
05/02754/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2018583/NWF
06/00138/REF
46 Sheephouse Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 8HH
Construction of a two storey side extension, detached 4-bay open-sided
car port following demolition of existing garage and dropped kerb to allow
vehicular access
Refuse
Appeal Dismissed
8th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The insertion of a second access would be likely to result in
additional forward and reversing movements onto the road and
would impede the movement of traffic and be harmful to highway
safety.
DC Ref:
G S Tiwana
06/00831/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2029390/WF
06/00231/REF
Land Rear Of 48 Birdwood Road And 35 Farm Road Maidenhead
Berkshire
Construction of two No. 3 bedroom detached houses with attached single
garages following demolition of existing bungalow
Refuse
Appeal Dismissed
20th March 2007
The inspector considers that:
1. Although the appellant is willing to enter into the necessary
planning obligations no such document has been
provided, there is no mechanism available to secure the
necessary contributions.
108
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
PVWRCM
DC Ref:
Stuart Craig
06/01119/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2021954/NWF
06/00149/REF
Blueys Farm Twyford Road Waltham St Lawrence Reading Berkshire
RG10 0HE
Erection of a block of six stables, stationing of a caravan for temporary
staff on a seasonal basis for three years and variation of paragraph 37 of
appeal decision APP/TO355/A/04/1146259 (type of mobile home
approved) - planning reference 03/40660
Refuse
Appeal Withdrawn
23rd March 2007
DC Ref:
Renworth Homes Ltd
06/01130/OUT
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2029872/NWF
06/00217/REF
Dunraven Pippins And Tamarind Shoppenhangers Road Maidenhead
Berkshire
Outline application for the erection of six houses and ten flats with access
onto Larchfield Road following demolition of Dunraven and Pippins
Refuse
Appeal Allowed
5th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The scheme takes advantage of the opportunities that are
available to improve the character and quality of the area.
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs Stone
06/01241/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2030092/NWF
06/00220/REF
The Four Horseshoes Warren Row Road Wargrave Reading RG10 8NT
Two storey and single storey rear extensions
Application Permitted
Refuse
Appeal Withdrawn
5th March 2007
109
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs K Stannard
06/01440/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2028093/WF
06/00223/REF
Huston Moneyrow Green Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2ND
Alterations to ridge height to form habitable accommodation in loft space
with front and rear dormers
Refuse
Appeal Dismissed
6th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. No very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to
the Green Belt have been demonstrated.
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs Turner
06/01598/CAC
RBWM Ref:
T0355/E/06/20317131/WF
06/00240/REF
Highridge Startins Lane Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9TS
Consent to demolish an unlisted boundary wall in a conservation area
Refuse
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
DC Ref:
T Bennett
06/01730/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2027570/NWF
06/00199/REF
Thimble Farm Sturt Green Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2JH
Change of Use of part from agriculture to screen printing
Refuse
PVWRCM
RefuseDelegated
Appeal Allowed
5th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The proposal does not amount to inappropriate development, or
have any effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
2. The wall , when in good condition, would have added some
considerable character to this part of the Conservation Area,
however, in its current state it does not.
Appeal Allowed
7th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The proposed development would not represent inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
110
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
DC Ref:
Mr C Khan
06/01741/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2031626/WF
06/00234/REF
Unit 4 Velmead Works 33 Lower Cookham Road Maidenhead SL6 8JS
Erection of open sided canopy to front elevation (retrospective)
Application Permitted
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs Turner
06/01776/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2031794/WF
06/00239/REF
Highridge Startins Lane Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9TS
Replacement 2.0m high brick wall
Refuse
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
DC Ref:
T Bennett
06/01791/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/06/2030367/NWF
06/00222/REF
Thimble Farm Sturt Green Holyport Maidenhead SL6 2JH
Change of use of approximately 40m2 of 'Nissen Hut' from agriculture to
animal grooming (sui generis)
Refuse
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
PVWRCM
RefuseDelegated
Appeal Allowed
15th March 2007
1. The proposed development would not represent inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
RefuseDelegated
Appeal Allowed
5th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The proposal does not amount to inappropriate development, or
have any effect on the openness of the Green Belt.
2. The wall, when in good condition, would have added some
considerable character to this part of the Conservation Area,
however, in its current state it does not.
Appeal Allowed
7th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The proposed development would not represent inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
111
Appellant:
DETR Ref:
Location:
Development:
Officer’s
Recommendatio:
Panel Decision:
Appeal Decision:
Decision Date:
Main Issue:
PVWRCM
DC Ref:
Mr And Mrs S James
06/02342/FULL
RBWM Ref:
T0355/A/07/2034185/NWF
06/00252/REF
Little Wing 46 Sheephouse Road Maidenhead SL6 8HH
Two storey side extension, detached 4-bay open-sided car port following
demolition of existing garage and dropped kerb to allow vehicular access
Refuse
Appeal Allowed
8th March 2007
The Inspector considers that:
1. The proposal would not affect the living conditions of the
occupiers of Hollybank.
112