Date of issue: Tuesday 6 th April, 2010 MEETING PLANNING ...$ADocPac… · SHABANA KAUSER 01753 875013 NOTICE OF MEETING You are requested to attend the above Meeting at the time

Date of issue: Tuesday 6th April, 2010

MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE (Councillors Dodds (Chair), P Choudhry, A S Dhaliwal,

Finn, MacIsaac, Plimmer, Rasib, Swindlehurst and Zarait)

DATE AND TIME: WEDNESDAY, 14TH APRIL, 2010 AT 6.30 PM VENUE: COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, BATH ROAD,

SLOUGH DEMOCRATIC SERVICES OFFICER: (for all enquiries)

SHABANA KAUSER 01753 875013

NOTICE OF MEETING

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

RUTH BAGLEY Chief Executive

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

AGENDA

PART 1

AGENDA

ITEM REPORT TITLE PAGE WARD

Apologies for absence.

AGENDA


CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

1. Declaration of Interest

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

2. Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 17th March, 2010

1 - 8

3. Human Rights Act Statement

9 - 10

PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE BOROUGH

4. P/02407/081 - 734a Bath Road Retail Park, Bath Road, Slough

11 - 20 Haymill

5. P/05040/002 - 1 Blumfield Crescent, Slough

21 - 28 Haymill

PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE BOROUGH

6. S/00568/003 - Parlaunt Park Primary School, Kennett Road, Langley, Slough

29 - 44 Langley St Mary's

7. P/03949/001 - 17 Lascelles Road, Slough

45 - 56 Upton

MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

8. Appeal Decisions

57 - 64 All

9. Authorised Enforcements and Prosecutions

65 - 84 All

10. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

It is recommended that the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of item 13, in Part II of the Agenda, as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual; information in respect of which a claim to legal privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings; and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime, as defined within paragraphs 2, 5 and 7 of Part 1, Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

AGENDA


PART II

11. Minutes of the last meeting held on 17th March, 2010

85 - 86

Press and Public

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

This page is intentionally left blank

Planning Committee – Meeting held on Wednesday, 17th March, 2010.

Present:- Councillors Dodds (Chair), P Choudhry, Finn (until 8.30 pm), MacIsaac, Plimmer, Rasib, Swindlehurst and Zarait

Also present under Rule 30:- Councillors Shine and S Chaudhry

Apologies for Absence:- Councillor A S Dhaliwal

PART I

97. Declaration of Interest

Councillor MacIsaac declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 12 – S/00134/010 – Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land to the East of Pemberton Road and Kennedy Park, Slough, in that he was a Member of the BILLD Coalition Group which included Britwell Councillors, who had made known their objections to the current scheme. He advised that he had also asked questions at Cabinet regarding the scheme but had not expressed any opinion and would view the application with an open mind. He advised that he would speak and vote on the item. Councillor Finn declared a personal interest in relation to agenda 12 – S/00134/010 – Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land to the East of Pemberton Road and Kennedy Park, Slough, in that he was a Member of the BILLD Coalition Group which included Britwell Councillors who had made known their objections to the current scheme. He advised that he would view the application with an open mind and speak and vote on the item. Councillor Swindlehurst declared a personal interest in relation to agenda item 12 - S/00134/010 – Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land to the East of Pemberton Road and Kennedy Park, Slough, in that he was the Cabinet Member responsible for Housing and Regeneration. He advised that he would view the application with an open mind and speak and vote on the item.

98. Minutes of the last Meeting held on 17th February, 2010 The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17th February, 2010 were approved as a correct record.

99. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6.35 pm and reconvened at 6.40 p.m. to allow the Committee to read the amendment sheet which had been tabled at the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 2

Page 1

Planning Committee - 17.03.10

100. Planning Applications Oral representations were made to the Committee by Objectors and Applicants or their Agents under the Public Participation Scheme and local Members prior to the planning applications being considered by the Committee as follows:- P/12244/007 – Colnbrook Logistics Centre, Colnbrook By-Pass, Slough – A Colnbrook with Pyle Parish Councillor and the Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee. P/03597/004 - Nags Head, 167-169, Stoke Road, Slough – An Objector, the Applicant, and a Ward Member addressed the Committee. S/00134/010 - Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land to the East of Pemberton Road & Kennedy Park, Slough – A Ward Member addressed the Committee. Details were tabled in the amendment sheet of alterations and amendments received to applications since the agenda was circulated, together with further representations and/or petitions received. Resolved - That the decisions be taken in respect of the planning

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

101. P/12244/007- Colnbrook Logistics Centre, Colnbrook By Pass, Slough

Application Decision

P/12244/007 - Colnbrook Logistics Centre, Colnbrook By Pass, Slough, Berkshire SL3 0EA- Application to vary Condition 01 of planning permission Reference P/12244/000 dated 21st October 2003 (as amended) for the retention of a temporary logistics centre for the delivery, storage and assembly of materials and components related to the construction of Heathrow related construction projects, incorporating alia rail sidings, bulk powder storage facility , steel reinforcement fabrication facility, administration buildings, and car and lorry parking, for a further temporary period up to 31st December, 2018.

Delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects for completion of a unilateral undertaking, finalising conditions and making a final determination.

Page 2


102. P/03597/004- Nags Head, 167-169, Stoke Road, Slough Application Decision

P/03597/004 - Nags Head, 167-169, Stoke Road, Slough, SL2 5BQ - Erection of a single storey rear extension, a conservatory a new entrance lobby and single storey front extension exterior alterations to existing building and boundary wall, relocation of exterior staircase and establishment of 13 car parking spaces including one disabled car parking space.

Delegated to the Head of Planning and Strategic Policy and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor for signing of a S106 agreement and to agree any subsequent minor amendments to the planning application or legal agreement.

103. S/00134/010- Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land To The East of Pemberton Road & Kennedy Park, Slough Application Decision

S/00134/010 - Britwell and Haymill Regeneration, Land to the East of Pemberton Road & Kennedy Park, Slough - Outline planning application, for the development of retail (use classes A1, A2, A3 and A5), residential (use class C3), community uses (use class D1) and associated car parking, bus facilities, new formalised footpath and associated improvements to Kennedy Park. (Cllr P Choudhry did not take part in the discussion or vote on the above item as he was not present when the Officer introduced the report to the Committee). (Cllr Finn left the meeting at 8.30 p.m. after the vote on the above item had been taken)

Having taken the environmental information supplied with the application into consideration, in accordance with Regulation 3(2) of the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Regulations 1999, that the application be approved in principle subject to the Borough Secretary and Solicitor sealing a written undertaking on behalf of the Council as Landowner, that should the Council dispose of all or part of the application site, that the transfer documents will impose an obligation on the Developer to enter into a Section 106 Agreement on such terms and conditions that reflect the required planning benefits set out in the report; and that the Head of Planning Policy and Projects in consultation with the Borough Secretary and Solicitor be authorised to agree any subsequent minor amendments to the application, the planning conditions or the relevant Section 106 Agreements.

Page 3


104. P/00362/066- (Former Co-Op Superstore), 78, Uxbridge Road, Slough,

Berkshire Application Decision

P/00362/066 - (Former Co-Op Superstore), 78, Uxbridge Road, Slough, Berkshire - Application for the approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission reference P/00362/063 for demolition of existing structure and construction of a new Superstore with alterations to existing access, car parking and landscaping.

Approved subject to conditions.

105. P/10406/007- Intercity House, Railway Terrace, Slough Application Decision

P/10406/007 - Intercity House, Railway Terrace, Slough - Redevelopment of site to provide 134 dwellings (in a building rising from 4 storeys to 10 storeys) with associated parking, amenity space and public space (access from Grays Place), variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference P/10406/006 dated 13/10/2006. To revise drawings. (Increase height of building by 1.16m; increase projection of 4th floor on north elevation by 1m; increase ramp gradient).


106. P/13110/004- Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middle Green Road, Langley, Slough, Berkshire Application Decision

P/13110/004 - Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middle Green Road, Langley, Slough, Berkshire SL3 6DF - Erection of 200 dwellings (application for an extension of time for implementation of existing outline planning permission).

Decision delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects for the signing of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement to agree the outstanding drainage matter referred to in the report, to add suitable conditions, and to agree any minor amendments to the planning application, draft conditions, and Section 106 planning obligation matters.

Page 4


107. P/13110/005- Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middlegreen Road, Slough

Application Decision

P/13110/005 - Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middlegreen Road, Slough - Erection of 200 dwellings (application to renew existing outline planning permission).

Decision delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects for the signing of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement to agree the outstanding drainage matter referred to in the report, to add suitable conditions, and to agree any minor amendments to the planning application, draft conditions, and Section 106 planning obligation matters.

108. P/13110/006- Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middlegreen Road, Slough Application Decision

P/13110/006 - Middlegreen Trading Estate, Middlegreen Road, Slough - Details of 167 dwellings (reserved matters application re. outline planning permission P/13110/000 dated 28/11/2006.

Decision delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects to agree the outstanding drainage matter and to agree any minor amendments to the planning application and draft conditions.

109. S/00568/002 - Parlaunt Park County Combined School, Kennett Road, Slough Application Decision

S/00568/002 - Parlaunt Park County Combined School, Kennett Road, Slough - Retention of single storey modular building containing two no. classrooms, storage, tea rooms and toilet facilities.


110. Update on the submission of the LDF Site Allocations Document and approval of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) The Head of Planning Policy and Projects outlined a report to update the Committee on the progress of the Site Allocations document which had been submitted to the Secretary of State and to seek approval for the publication of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The Committee was reminded that public version of the Site Allocations document was considered by the Planning Committee on 8th September,

Page 5


2009, prior to it being approved by Council for publication. On 6th November, 2009 it was published for an extended nine week consultation period, up to 8th January, 2010. It was noted that 35 responses were received from or on behalf of 32 different organisations, including statutory consultees, developers, agents and special interest groups. Of the 32 organisations that had responded, 16 considered the document to be unsound in some respect, and 5 considered it to be sound. The Council was required to send a summary of the main issues raised in the representations to the Secretary of State. The Committee noted the detail of the five major objections to the principle of or significant element of the specific site allocations, and that the Government Office of the South-East had raised concerns about proposed development at Arbour Vale School and Newbeech House The site allocations DPD had now been submitted to the Secretary of State without any alterations from the published version but it was accepted that some minor changes could be made to the Plan to take account of points raised during the public consultation. The Council had produced a schedule of proposed changes which it would invite the inspector to make but it was noted that these were minor changes which did not affect the soundness of the document. The Officer advised that an Inspector had now been appointed who would hold a hearing in May/June 2010 to assess the soundness of the Plan. The binding report could then be published in August 2010 and the Council would be able to formally adopt the Site Allocations DPD which would form part of the Statutory Development Plan. The Committee was advised that Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) required the Council to produce a SHLAA to demonstrate that there were sufficient potential housing sites to meet the allocation of the South East Plan. The Inspector who considered the Core Strategy had agreed it was not necessary to produce one in Slough because sufficient housing land had already been identified to meet the 20 year allocation. Resolved –

(a) That the submission of the LDF Site Allocations DPD and new supporting proposals be noted.

(b) That the publication of the Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessment be approved.

111. Appeal Decisions The Committee noted the receipt of various planning appeal decisions. Resolved – That the report be noted.

Page 6


112. Authorised Enforcements and Prosecutions The Committee noted the status of various ongoing Enforcement and Prosecution cases. Resolved – That the report be noted.

113. Exclusion of the Press and Public Resolved – That the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during

the consideration of item 17 in Part II of the agenda as it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information which would likely reveal the identity of an individual; information in respect of which a claim to legal privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings; and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime, as defined within paragraphs 2, 5 and 7 of Part I, Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Part II

(The following is a summary of the matters considered in Part II of the meeting)

114. Proposed carrying out of works in default to land at 2 Upton Court Road,

Slough, SL3 7LX The Committee considered a report relating to the proposed carrying out of works in Upton, Slough. Resolved – That the recommended actions be approved.

Chair

(Note: The Meeting opened at 6.30 pm and closed at 9.20 pm)

Page 7

Page 8


Human Rights Act Statement

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

October

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

account this balance.

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

individual applications beyond this general statement, unless there are exceptional

circumstances which demand more careful and sensitive consideration of Human

Rights issues.

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

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

the location of the application sites.

CLU / CLUD Certificate of Lawful Use / Development

GOSE Government Office for the South East

HPSP Head of Planning and Strategic Policy

HPPP Head of Planning Policy & Projects

S106 Section 106 Planning Legal Agreement

SPZ Simplified Planning Zone

TPO Tree Preservation Order

USE CLASSES – Principal uses A1 Retail Shop

A2 Financial & Professional Services

A3 Restaurants & Cafes

A4 Drinking Establishments

A5 Hot Food Takeaways

B1 (a) Offices

B1 (b) Research & Development

B1 (c ) Light Industrial

B2 General Industrial

B8 Warehouse, Storage & Distribution

C1 Hotel, Guest House

C2 Residential Institutions

C3 Dwellinghouse

D1 Non Residential Institutions

D2 Assembly & Leisure

OFFICER ABBREVIATIONS AWM Alan McMillen

WM Wesley McCarthy

RS Reena Sharma

EW Edward Wilson

CS Chris Smyth

RK Roger Kirkham

HA Howard Albertini

AH Abigail Heard

SG Sarah Gambitsis

IH Ian Hann

AM Ann Mead

FI Fariba Ismat

PS Paul Stimpson

PT Phillip Taylor

RB Richard Black

AGENDA ITEM 3

Page 9

Page 10


14th April 2010 Slough Borough Council Planning Committee

Applic. No: P/02407/081

Registration Date: 28-Jan-

2010

Ward: Haymill

Officer: Abigail

Heard

Applic type:

13 week date: Major

29th April 2010

Applicant: The Crown Estate

Agent: Ms. Jolande Bowater, Barton Willmore LLP 1st Floor, Regent

House, Princes Gate, 4 Homer Road, Solihull, B91 3QQ

Location: 734a, Bath Road Retail Park, Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL1

4DX

Proposal: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING

PERMISSION P/02407/076 DATED 15TH JULY 2009, TO

INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL GLAZING IN THE FRONT

ELEVATION OF UNIT 734A BATH ROAD RETAIL PARK

(FORMER ALLIED CARPETS)

Recommendation: Delegate to HPPP for S106

AGENDA ITEM 4

Page 11


P/02407/081 1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION 1.1

This application is to be determined by the Planning Committee as it forms a variation of a planning condition for a major development. It is recommended that the application is delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor for the agreement of conditions, signing of a Section 106 agreement and to agree any subsequent minor amendments to the conditions or legal agreement.

PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal

2.1

The application seeks permission to vary condition 2 of planning permission P/02407/076, which is as follows; ‘The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (a) Drawing No. 8627 PL 02 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On 26/01/2009 (b) Drawing No. 8627 PL 03, Dated December 2008, Recd On 26/01/2009 (c) Drawing No. 8627 PL 06 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On 26/01/2009 (d) Drawing No. 8627 PL04 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On 26/01/2009 (e) Drawing No. 8627 PL01 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On 16/04/2009 REASON To ensure that the site is developed in accordance with the submitted application and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenity of the area’ It is proposed that (b) Drawing No. 8627 PL03, Dated December 2008, Recd On 26/01/2009 is replaced with Drawing No. 17254, Dated November 2009, Recd on 28/01/2009. This drawing shows unit 734a (which was formally Allied Carpets) with an additional 63.2 sq.m. of glazing than that which was approved and the removal of two brick columns and associated landscaping.

2.2

This information was originally submitted to the Local Planning Authority in the form of an application for a non-material amendment. This application was refused on the basis of the fact that the amendment proposed is material as the additional glazing

Page 12


will result in a development which will have a different external appearance to that which is approved resulting in further shop windows and the loss of two cedar panels. Subsequently this application for a minor amendment has been submitted and requires assessment.

3.0 3.1

Site History The application site has an extensive history which dates back to the first retail use of the site in 1992. Until recently the site has been under the ownership of SEGRO and it still forms part of the Slough Trading Estate. There have been numerous applications for advertisements and amendments to conditions, which include applying to increase trading space and opening hours. Application P/2407/76 was approved in July 2009 and sought permission for the construction of a mini-roundabout and alterations to the internal access road, resurfacing and reconfiguration of car parking areas, additional glazing and refurbishments to retail units, signage boxes, ATM’s, Landscaping and Cycle Parking and the erection of 2 retail pods (Class A1/A3) at 170 square metres (total).

4.0 4.1

Neighbour Notification 280 to 316 (even) Bath Road 273 to 335 (odds) Bath Road 1 to 21 (odds) Burnham Road Press Notice Expires: 09/04/10

4.2 No letters of objection or support received

PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL

5.0 Policy Background 5.1

PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13: Transport Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 (SLDF): Core Policies 6, 7, 8, 10 The Local Plan For Slough 2004 (SLP): S1, T2, T8

6.0

Principle of Development

6.1

The principle of development has been established under Planning Application P/02407/081 as such the proposal is considered to comply with Government Guidance contained within PPS4 and Core Policy 6 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core

Page 13


Strategy

7.0

Design and Layout

7.1 The additional glazing is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the building or the surrounding area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the additional glazing will result in the loss of two brick columns and associated landscaping which are evident throughout the approved scheme it is not considered given the minimal number of columns to be removed that the development will have a significantly harmful impact on the character of the area. It is also important to recognise that a significant level of full height glazing is proposed as part of the approved scheme. It is therefore considered that the application will comply with Government guidance contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy and policy EN1 of the Local Plan for Slough.

8.0

Highway Safety and Accessibility

8.1

The development will not result in additional floor space subsequently there will be no implications in respect of traffic generation or highway safety. It is therefore considered that the application will comply with Government guidance contained within PPG13: Transport, Core Policy 7 of the Slough Local Development Core Strategy and policy 2 of the Local Plan for Slough 2004.

9.0 Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers

9.1

The additional glazing given the location of the retail unit will not result in the development causing any significant overlooking. There will be no additional floor space by virtue of the proposal as such there will be no overshadowing the proposal will not have an overbearing impact and it is not considered to result in an intensification of use. It is therefore considered that the application will comply with Government guidance contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy.

10.0

S106 Agreement

10.1 A section 106 agreement requiring the applicant to make a contribution in order to mitigate the impact of the additional trips on the highway network was entered into on application P/2407/76. It is considered that this obligation is still justified as such the applicant will need to enter into a legal agreement to vary this s106 agreement.

Page 14


5

PART C: RECOMMENDATION 10.0 Recommendation 10.1

It is recommended application is delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects and the Borough Secretary and Solicitor for the agreement of conditions, signing of a Section 106 agreement and to agree any subsequent minor amendments to the conditions or legal agreement.

11.0 PART D: LIST OF CONDITION(S)

Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within five

years from the date of this permission.

REASON To prevent the accumulation of planning permissions, and

to enable the Council to review the suitability of the development in

the light of altered circumstances and to comply with the provisions of

Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in

accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(a) Drawing No. 8627 PL 02 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On

26/01/2009

(b) Drawing No. 17254 PL 03, Dated November 2009, Recd On

28/01/2010

(c) Drawing No. 8627 PL 06 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On

26/01/2009

(d) Drawing No. 8627 PL04 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On

26/01/2009

(e) Drawing No. 8627 PL01 Rev A, Dated December 2008, Recd On

16/04/2009

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

submitted application and to ensure that the proposed development

does not prejudice the amenity of the area.

3. Samples of external materials to be used on the development hereby

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

Planning Authority before the scheme is commenced on site and the

development shall be carried out in accordance with the details

approved.

REASON To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the development so

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

with Policy EN1 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

Page 15


6

4. Prior to first occupation of the development, the internal access roads

and footpaths and vehicular parking and turning provision shall be

provided in accordance with the approved plans, unless otherwise

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice

the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety on the local

highway network in accordance with Policy T3 of The Adopted Local

Plan for Slough 2004.

5. No development shall take place until a landscape management plan

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. This management plan shall set out the long term

objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedule for

the landscape areas other than the privately owned domestic gardens,

shown on the approved landscape plan, and should include time scale

for the implementation and be carried out in accordance with the

approved details.

REASON To ensure the long term retention of landscaping within the

development to meet the objectives of Policy EN3 of The Adopted

Local Plan for Slough 2004.

6. The net trading floor space of the A1/ A3 pods hereby permitted shall

not exceed 153 sq.m. The A1/A3 pods shall not be sub-divided and

operated by retailers/owners/occupiers separately.

REASON To prevent a departure from the present size of retail sales

floor area hereby permitted which could affect the vitality and viability

of the central shopping area within Slough and the surrounding district

centres. In accordance with Policy S1 of The Adopted Local Plan for

Slough 2004 and Core Policy 6 of The Slough Local Development

Framework 2006-2026, Development Plan Document, December

2008.

7. No development shall commence until a detailed scheme for the

provision of a secure cycle storage/parking (including location,

housing and cycle stand details) and access arrangements has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The provision of a secure cycle store and an unobstructed footway

shall be provided in accordance with the Local Planning Authorities

adopted 'Cycle Parking Standards'. No part of the development shall be

occupied until the cycle store and the access links have been laid out in

accordance with the approved details and that area shall not thereafter

be used for any other purpose other than cycle storage.

REASON To ensure that adequate and convenient cycle storage is

provided to accord with the adopted cycle parking standards, Policy T2

of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 and Core Policy 7 of The

Page 16


7

Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026,

Development Plan Document, December 2008 and the Slough

Integrated Transport Strategy.

8. No development shall commence until full details of both hard and

soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as

approved before the development is first occupied, or the use hereby

approved is commenced. The hard landscaping details shall include

proposed finished ground levels or contours; means of enclosure

(including traffic bollards/hoops) and hard surfacing areas. The soft

landscape works details shall include planting plans; written

specifications;

schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed

numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation plan. All hard

and soft landscape works shall be carried out in full accordance with

the approved details.

Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the

completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously

damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with

others of a similar size and species.

REASON In the interests of visual and residential amenity and

accordance with Policy EN3 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough

2004.

9. There shall be no outside storage of goods, materials or packaging at

any time.

REASON In the interests of visual amenity of the site and in

accordance with the objectives of Policy EMP 2 of The Adopted

Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

10. All air conditioning or other ventilation plant shall be designed to

ensure that external noise generated by the plant or equipment shall not

at any time exceed the ambient sound level as measured at the site

boundary when the equipment is not in operation. This shall be

implemented prior to first occupation of the development and retained

at all times in the future.

REASON To minimise the impact of the noise generated by the

equipment on the amenities of the local residents in accordance with

Core Policy 8 of The Slough Local Development Framework, Core

Strategy 2006 - 2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008.

11. The retail warehouses shall only be open to the public between the

hours of 07.00am and 21.00pm.

REASON To safeguard the amenities of nearby occupiers and the area

Page 17


8

generally in accordance with Core Policy 8 of The Slough Local

Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, Development

Plan Document, December 2008.

12. The Drive-Thru Restaurant shall only be open to the public between

the hours of 06.00am and 23.00pm.





13. There shall be no retail sales of food or food products within the retail

warehouses which perimeters are shaded in black on the approved site

plan (Drawing Number 8627-01 Rev A received 16th April 2009).

REASON To safeguard the future viability and vitality of the central

shopping area within Slough and the surrounding district centres in

accordance with Policy S1 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough

2004 and Core Policy 6 of The Slough Local Development

Framework, Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, Development Plan Document,

December 2008 and to ensure the provision of adequate parking spaces

within the site in the interests of road safety and the free flow of traffic

along the neighbouring highway in accordance with Core Policy 7 of

The Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -

2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008.

14. No development shall commence until details of the following have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority;

(a) Floodlighting

(b) External Lighting

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details before the development is brought in to use.





15. All deliveries, loading and unloading to all the units on the approved

plans shall take place between the hours of 06:00am and 23:00pm.





Page 18


9

16. No floor space created by internal sub-division, mezzanine floor, or

external extension shall take place to the retail warehouses which

perimeters are shaded in black on the approved site plan (Drawing

Number 8627-01 Rev A received 16th April 2009) without the prior

written approval of the Local Planning Authority.






December 2008 and to ensure the provision of adequate parking space

within the site in the interests of road safety and the free flow of traffic

along the neighbouring highway in accordance with Core Policy 7 of

The Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -

2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008.

17. There shall be no retail sales of convenience goods from the A1 retail

pod/s hereby permitted.






December 2008.

Informative(s)

1. The applicant is reminded that an Agreement under Section 106 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been entered into with

regards to the application hereby approved.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Local Plan for Slough 2004,

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

relevant material considerations.

Policies:- PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS4: Planning

for Sustainable Growth, PPG13:Transport and policies S1, T2 and T8

of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 and Core Policies 6, 7, 8

and 10 of The Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy

2006 - 2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008.

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

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

see the application report by contacting the Development Control

Section on 01753 477340.

Page 19

Page 20



Applic. No: P/05040/002

Registration Date: 26-Jan-

2010

Ward: Haymill

Officer: Richard

Black

Applicant: Mr. V Dhadli

Agent: Ms. Ritu Sharma, The White House Design 4, Denziloe Avenue,

Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB10 0ED

Location: 1, Blumfield Crescent, Slough, SL1 6NL

Proposal: ERECTION OF A PART SINGLE/PART TWO STOREY SIDE

EXTENSION, WITH PITCHED ROOF AND PART

SINGLE/TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH FLAT

AND PITCHED ROOF.

Recommendation: Approve subject to Conditions

AGENDA ITEM 5

Page 21


P/05040/002 1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Having considered the comments from consultees and planning policy, it is considered that the proposed scheme is acceptable and as such is recommended that the application is approved, with conditions and informatives.

1.2 This application is a householder application which would normally be determined by officers under the approved scheme of delegation; however it is being referred to this Committee for decision, because the applicant is an employee of the Council.

1.3 Having considered the relevant Policies below, the development is not considered to have an adverse affect on matters of sustainability nor the environment for the reasons set out in the report below.

PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal 2.1 The proposal relates to the construction of a part single

storey/part two storey side extension with pitched roof and part one / part two storey rear extension with pitched and hipped roof.

2.2 The side extension will be set down from the existing roof ridge

height by 0.5m and at first floor will be set in by 1.0m from the front façade. The side extension will have a width of 2.6m, a depth of 7.65m (11.9m including rear extension) and a height of 7.5m.

2.3 The rear extension extends out from the main building by a depth of 4.25m, a width of 8.1m and has a maximum height of 7.5m. The structure will extend over the full width of the main building and the proposed side extension. A flat roof will cover the part single storey rear extension.

2.4 The extensions will convert the existing three bedroom dwelling into four bedrooms with a study and enlarged kitchen at ground floor and at first floor a bathroom and additional bedroom.

3.0 Site History 3.1 P/05040/000 – Erection of a single storey rear extension and

replacement garage with garden storage. Approved - 02/02/1979.

Page 22


3.2 P/05040/001 – Construction of a two storey side extension with pitched roof and part one / part two storey rear extension with pitched and hipped roof. Granted – 22/03/2010.

4.0 Application Site 4.1 The application site is a semi detached property located on the

northern side of Blumfield Crescent. The site is large and rectangular in shape and is bound on two sides by Phipps Road and Blumfield Crescent. At the rear of the property is a garage and out building.

4.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential. Blumfield Crescent itself is characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties.

5.0 Neighbour Notification 5.1 The neighbours at Nos. 3 & 199 Blumfield Crescent and No. 38

Haymill Road were notified of the application. No letters of objection were received.

6.0

Consultation

6.1 Highways: “Mindful of the above, the additional information that is required before this application could be supported should include the proposed access location on Blumfield Crescent and a layout of the proposed parking arrangement to achieve the minimum car parking standard of 3 spaces, including pedestrian & forward visibility splays, based on the proposed development to provide 4 bedrooms.

I am able to determine from the information provided as part of this submission that an undersupply of parking may occur, allowing provision a pedestrian link 1m wide, which must be provided to allow access to the unit in addition to the parking bays of 2.4m x 4.8m. This shortfall may lead to overspill parking on the highway. If the applicant considers that they can address the comments that have been made then I would be pleased to consider additional information supplied. Alternatively, should you wish to determine this application as submitted then I would recommend that planning permission be refused for the reason(s) given.”

Page 23


PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 7.0 Policy Background 7.1 The application is considered in relation to:

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

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

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

• Slough Local Development Framework, Residential Extensions Guidelines, Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted January 2010; and

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

8.0 Design and Appearance/ Impact on Street Scene 8.1 The first floor extension would be set back from the front elevation

at the first floor level by 1.0m and the height would be set below the main roof by 0.5m. The set down and set back would make the proposed side extension appear subordinate to the main building, which is in accordance with Council policy and guidance.

8.2 A substantial separation would be retained between the proposed side extension and the nearest built form located to the west along Blumfield Crescent. This visual gap is a result of the proposal adjoining Phipps Road which also has a wide road reserve abutting the proposed extension. In addition to this mature vegetation within the road reserve would partially screen the proposed side extension from public views. As such the proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the street scene and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

8.3 The proposed part one/part two storey rear extension would be built to a depth of 4.25m at both ground and first floor level with a pitched roof to a height of 7.5m. The rear extension in terms of design and appearance is considered to be in keeping with that of the original dwelling and in terms of size and volume to be in proportion with the main dwelling. The recess at first floor level helps reduce the volume of the rear extension and would avoid breaching the 45 degree line of sight of the neighbour to the east. The design and appearance of the side and rear extensions are considered to be in keeping with the main dwelling and consistent with the character of the built form in this setting.

Page 24


8.4 As such the proposal is considered to be in keeping with PPS1, Core Policy 8 of LDF, Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of the Local Plan in terms of design and appearance and therefore, is considered to be acceptable.

9.0 Impact on Neighbours 9.1 The proposed part single/part two storey side extension would be

built along the depth of the main dwelling and would be set in from the boundary marginally. Therefore, there would be no encroachment on neighbouring property which is a wide road reserve located to the west.

9.2 The proposed first floor rear extension would not breach the 45 degree line of sight for neighbouring dwelling at No. Blumfield Way, to the north. Although the proposal does not specifically comply with EX27 of the Residential Extensions Guidelines (2010), which states the maximum first floor depth to be 3.3m, given that the only adjoining residential neighbour at No. 3 Blumfield Crescent has a substantial single storey rear extension, it is therefore considered the proposed depth of extension will avoid adverse impacts on this neighbour in terms of having being over bearing effect.

9.3

The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on any neighbouring properties and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

10.0 Amenity Space 10.1 The subject property would maintain a rear garden of approximately

11m in depth, with an approximate width of 8.5m. The dwelling would be converted to four bedrooms as a result of the extensions and according to the Council’s approved Guidelines for Provision of Amenity Space around Residential Properties (1990) a four or more bedroom dwelling would need to have a 15m deep rear garden.

10.2 However, if the 15 metre depth cannot be achieved because of irregular boundaries, a relaxation of this standard may be allowed provided the garden size exceeds 100 square metres. This is applicable in this instance as the site is irregular shaped and the rear garden to be retained is approximately 100m².

10.3 As such the retained rear garden is considered to be acceptable as it is in keeping with the above guideline and in terms of amenity space provisions is considered to be acceptable.

Page 25


11.0 Parking 11.1 The property would be converted into a four bedroom dwelling, from

three bedrooms, as a result of the extensions. The Parking Standards of the Local Plan requires three onsite parking spaces for a four bedroom dwelling.

11.2 The applicant proposes to retain the hard surfacing within the front forecourt of the property. This forecourt has parking for three car parking spaces on-site; this complies with the Council parking standards. The Council’s Highways Officer has reviewed the proposal and has concerns over the car parking and access, however given that the access and parking is existing, it is not considered grounds for refusing the application and it is not believed that this reason would be upheld at appeal. As such, the proposed parking provisions are considered to be acceptable.

12.0 Summary 12.1 It is therefore considered that the development complies with

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Core Policies 7 and 8 of Slough Local Development Framework, Adopted Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (DPD – December 2008), Policies EN1, EN2, H14, H15 and T2 and the Parking Standards of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004; Slough Local Development Framework, Residential Extensions Guidelines, Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted January 2010 and Council’s Guidelines for Provision of Amenity Space around Residential Properties, 1990.

13.0 PART C: RECOMMENDATION 13.1 Approve, subject to conditions 14.0 PART D: LIST OF CONDITION(S)

Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within three years from the date of this permission.





2. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved by

the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Drawing No. JAY/01/09C; Dated 12/03/2010; Recd On 15/03/2010

Page 26


(b) Drawing No. JAY/01/09A; Dated 04/02/2010; Recd On

04/02/2010



does not prejudice the amenity of the area and to comply with the

policies in The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

3. All new external work shall be carried out in materials that match as closely as possible the colour, texture and design of the existing

building at the date of this permission.


as not to prejudice the visual amenities of the locality in accordance

with Policy EN1 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

4. Not withstanding the terms and provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any order

revoking and re-enacting that Order), Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes

A,B,C,D,E & F, no extension to the house hereby permitted or

buildings or enclosures shall be erected constructed or placed on the

site without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

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

would otherwise be deemed to be permitted by the provision of the

above order in accordance with Policy H14 of The Local Plan for

Slough 2004.

5. The extension hereby permitted shall be used only in conjunction with the existing house and shall not be sub- divided or used in multiple

occupation.



does not prejudice the amenity of the area, which may occur if the

property is sub-divided or used in multiple occupation in accordance

with the provisions of Policy H19 and Policy H20 of The Adopted


Informative(s)

1. This decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Local Plan for Slough 2004 and the Slough Local

Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, as set out

below, (to Supplementary Planning Guidance) and to all relevant

material considerations.

Policies:- Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Core Policies 7 and 8

Page 27


of The Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -

2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008, Policies EN1,

EN2, H14, H15 and T2 and the Parking Standards of The Adopted

Local Plan for Slough, 2004; Council's Approved Guidelines for

Provision of Amenity Space Around Residential Properties, 1990 and

The Slough Local Development Framework, Residential Extensions

Guidelines, Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted January

2010.




Section on 01753 477340.

Page 28


Applic. No: S/00568/003

Registration Date: 24-Feb-2010 Ward: Langley St. Marys

Officer: Ian Hann

Applicant: Mr. Jeffrey Lewis, Slough Borough Council

Agent: Ms. Rachel Bassindale, Nightingale Associates 87-91, Newman

Street, London, W1T 3EY

Location: Parlaunt Park Primary School, Kennett Road, Langley, Slough,

Berkshire, SL3 8EQ

Proposal: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS WITH FLAT

ROOFS TO EXISTING SCHOOL, AND HALL WITH

ASSOCIATED INTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND

ALTERATIONS TO FENESTRATION TO CREATE A THREE

FORM ENTRY PRIMARY SCHOOL. ERECTION OF NEW

SINGLE STOREY NURSERY BUILDING WITH MONO PITCH

ROOF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STAFF CAR PARK,

DISABLED VISITORS PARKING, AND DELIVERY-REFUSE

ACCESS.

Recommendation: Delegate to HPPP

AGENDA ITEM 6

Page 29


2

S/00568/003 1.0

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Having considered the policy background and the comments from neighbours and consultees it is recommended that the application be delegated to the Head of Planning Policy and Projects for consideration of outstanding matters relating to trees, land contamination and transport, finalising conditions and final determination.

1.2 This application is of a type which would normally be dealt with under powers of Officer Delegation, but it is before committee for a decision as it is a Slough Borough Council application and letters of objection has been received from local residents.

PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal

2.1 This application is for the extension and remodelling of the existing school to provide accommodation to allow the school to expand to become 3 form entry school from the existing 2 form entry school and the construction of a new nursery to provide 45 full time equivalent places.

2.2 The school will be extended to provide an additional three classrooms, additional corridors, staff room, new school entrance and an extension to the school hall. The additional classrooms will be provided by enlarging the existing western elevation by approximately 13m as well as internal remodelling of the building. The new staff room will be provided to the east of the site with an extension that will have a depth of 7m and a width of 13m. An extension to the existing hall in the middle of the site with a depth of 8m will provide a new stage. A new entrance and reception area to the school building will also be provided which will involve a 7.4m extension to the northern side of the building and will provide a defined and easily identifiable entrance to the school.

2.3 Further alterations will be made to the elevations of the existing building to update the façade by painting the render, replacing roofs and windows and extending canopies. Internal alterations will be made to building to create corridors and breakout spaces as well as internal room changes so that the movement around the school flows in a better fashion and avoids bottlenecks.

2.4 A new single storey nursery building with a part flat part mono pitch roof will be positioned at the north eastern edge of the site, so that it stands alone from the main school building with a width of 16.6m,

Page 30


3

depth of 17.2m and a height of 3.4m increasing to a maximum of 5m in the flat roof section.

2.5

Staff car parking will be moved from the northern corner of the site to the southern corner of the site and will increase the parking from 27 to 30 parking spaces. An additional 2 disability spaces will be provided on the north eastern part of the site where service and delivery vehicle parking / servicing will be provided.

2.6 The school have confirmed that the school needs to be rationalised, refurbished and extended to accommodate an increase in pupil numbers where an additional 30 places have to be secured for the 2010 academic year and each subsequent year. Funding has been secured to more the school from a 2 form entry school to a 3 form entry school (i.e. 90 children per year group rather than 60) and there is not sufficient space within the existing buildings to provide suitable teaching accommodation and the building suffers from problems of bottlenecking and not following a logical flow. These proposals for extensions and a comprehensive refurbishment of the site will provide the additional required space and provide a better flow around the school, removing bottlenecks and clash points.

3.0 Application Site

3.1 Parlaunt Park Primary School is located in Langley, to the south east of the junction of Meadfield Road and Kennett Road. It is bordered by Meadfield Road to the north and Kennett Road to the south with the other boundaries being formed of the rear gardens of neighbouring residential properties, although these are the boundaries which are furthest away from the main school building.

3.2 The majority of the school’s accommodation is single storey, with one section of the original main block being 2 storeys with access taken off of Kennet Road.

4.0 Planning Background

4.1 Planning permission was granted for extensions and alterations in April 1988 (P/07836/000).

4.2 Further consent was granted for single storey rear extension in July 1999 (S/00568/000) and a single storey glazed link corridor in July 2002 (S/00568/001).

4.3 Planning permission was granted for a single storey temporary

building to accommodate two class rooms, storage, tea rooms and toilets in April 2008 (P/07836/001).

Page 31


4

4.4 Planning permission was granted for the erection of a modular building containing two classrooms, storage rooms, tea rooms and toilet facilities for a temporary period of 5 years in March 2010 (S/00568/002).

5.0 Neighbour Notification

5.1 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 31, Radcot Avenue, Slough, SL3 8EJ, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 35, Kennett Road, Slough, SL3 8EQ, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198, Meadfield Road, Slough, SL3 8BJ, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, Burroway Road, Slough, SL3 8EH, One letter of objection has been received and signed by seven residents in Kennett Road, which has been treated as a petition and circulated to Members, raising the following points; Over the past 3-4 years the traffic outside our properties has dramatically increased due to the greater intake at the school, which in turn, has led to more congestion on the road and poor parking on a daily basis and collection and pick up times have become an unbearable occasion with parents parking over driveways and blocking access. It is noted that the staff car park will move to opposite our homes, however no additional parking spaces have been provided even though staff numbers will be increasing. It is our fear the traffic will continue to multiply and become a safety hazard for staff, residents, parents and children. Response: The traffic and highway issues are discussed in the report below. The plans highlight the removal of 9 trees. These should be preserved in a built up area, particularly the larger trees planted where the proposed car park position will be and as such will effect the residents outlook. Response: Trees and landscaping issues are discussed in the report below. A full tree assessment has been requested and its findings will be reported on the Amendment Sheet. A further letter of has been received from another resident in Kennett Road raising the following points: The relationship between school and Kennett Road residents has been reasonably good in the past, with parent-parking across driveways being the main bone of contention. Slough B.C/school should have arranged a public meeting with residents to explain the proposed major development and not just resort to planning

Page 32


5

application letters and notices on fences.

Response: Public meetings are not mandatory for Planning applications and proper consultations have been undertaken under the appropriate planning legislation.

With the merger of the Infant and Junior schools and the introduction of a nursery unit, residents of Kennett Road have observed that the amount of traffic has risen significantly with consequent increase in roadside parking by parents, staff and visitors. At 11.55 am on Thursday 18 March there were 19 cars parked in Kennett Road! The proposed plans do not help residents in any way: the staff car-park, to be moved to the south end of the site, only has three more parking spaces than at present (30 up from 27), despite staff numbers expected to rise from 78 to 92! Where is the logic in this? There aren’t sufficient spaces now to satisfy existing staff!

Response: The traffic and highway issues are discussed in the report below. One of your reports cites statistics for keeping the number of parking spaces low. These are that 53.8% of present staff live within 20 minutes walking distance of the school and 69.2% live with 20 minutes cycling distance. Is it being suggested that there will be an enforcement order on these staff to prevent them using their cars to school? If so, this is pure fiction! It makes excellent reading but is not a practicable solution to Kennett Road’s parking problem. What must be done is to increase the proposed staff car park layout to 90 spaces in order to ensure that all staff may park on site

Response: The traffic and highway issues are discussed in the report below.

In a previous letter commenting on planning application S/00568/002, I suggested that there should be an area where parents can deliver and collect their children, other than in our roads. This could either be at the southern end of the school, beyond where the “new” staff car park will be, or in the fenced-off area that surrounds an algae-covered pond. This latter area of land does not seem to be sacred because developers of the flats in Meadfield Road were allowed to set up a Sales Information cabin there. Why is this suggestion not being considered?

Response: A decision must be made on the plans that have been submitted.

The results of the traffic survey carried out in February should have demonstrated to you how dangerous Kennett Road is with the

Page 33


6

present number of pupils. It is extremely irritating to find that no proposal is being put forward to reduce traffic movement in Kennett Road mornings and afternoons with primary school children, and mid-day with nursery children. The proposal to increase pupil numbers by 200 will generate critically unsafe highway conditions because there could be as many as 100 or so additional cars using our road. An accident will happen sometime in the future – we have been very lucky to date. Response: The traffic and highway issues are discussed in the report below.

Other activities that create parking mayhem in Kennett Road are: Parents’ Evenings, school concerts and PTA socials. Asking parents not to use their car is futile. This will not work, just as it has not succeeded in stopping parents parking across the entrance to our driveways – it goes on, and will continue to go on unless Slough B.C. gives a lead to prevent this happening. This is the ideal time for doing this, and for demonstrating to residents that they have taken their concerns seriously.

Response: The traffic and highway issues are discussed in the report below.

It is also proposed to bring the position of refuse bins forward from their present position into the area designed for disabled vehicles and delivery vans. It is essential that a) adequate screening be provided to hide them from houses opposite, and b) infestation, especially in hot summers, be carefully controlled. Response: A condition can be attached to secure appropriate screening and matters of infestation are controlled under environmental health legislation.

6.0 Consultation 6.1 Highways and Transport

Comments will be reported on the amendment sheet.

6.2 Land Contamination Officer: Any comments will be reported on the Amendment Sheet

6.3 Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention Officer

Having paid a site visit and looked at the plans, broadly speaking I am happy with the proposals, although if I can ask a couple of question:

1. Will an alarm be fitted to the Nursery School and extended from the main primary school? Also will it be a monitored

Page 34


7

alarm?

2. Can all ground floor windows that are refurbished or new have laminate glass fitted as one of the panes of glass of double glazing?

3. Will there be some security access to the staff car park so parents don’t park there, or parents with issues cannot attack teacher’s cars?

4. There is a recess area to the north side of the SMT room behind the reception entrance. Could this recess be designed out so it removes a potential bullying area?

5. I saw the perimeter of the school grounds were generally secure, however I noticed on the Meadfield Road boundary, there was the odd area where perhaps the planting had thinned. Could some additional planting infill on this side? You may look at it and decide it’s just the cold winter we have had and in spring it will grow again?

As an additional item there is a new Secured By Design guide for schools on the web site at www.securedbydesign.com or direct to the design guides at: http://www.securedbydesign.com/professionals/guides.aspx

6.4 An informative will be attached directing the applicants to the relevant web sites)

6.5 Council’s tree Adviser

Any comments will be reported on the Amendment Sheet PART B: PLANNING APPRAISAL 7.0 Policy Background

7.1 National guidance

• Planning Policy Statement 1 (Creating Sustainable Communities)

Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, Development Plan Document

• Core Policy 7 (Transport)

• Core Policy 8 (Sustainability & the Environment) Adopted Local Plan for Slough

• EN1 (Standard of Design)

• T2 (Parking Restraint)

• OSC2 (Protection of School Playing Fields)

Page 35


8

7.2 The planning considerations for this proposal are:

• Principle of the development

• Impact on school playing fields / open space

• Design, appearance and impact on the street scene

• Impact to neighbouring residential properties

• Parking / Highway Safety

8.0 Principle of the development

8.1 The development is being located within a school site and is for education purposes and does not involve the loss of playing fields. As such, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable.

9.0 Impact on school playing fields/ open space

9.1 Policy OSC2 states that development upon school playing fields will not be permitted unless:

a) the development is ancillary to the use of the site as a school playing field and the scale of the development and intensity of use is appropriate to the location;

b) the use of the playing fields can be retained and enhanced by development on a small part of the field as long as the quality and quantity of pitch provision and the ability to make use of the pitches are not prejudiced; or

c) the playing field lost to development is replaced by new provision which is at least comparable in terms of size, facilities and amenity, and is located immediately adjacent to the school.

9.2 The proposal involves development of the new staff car park to part of the open area to the south of the site. However there is currently a temporary modular building positioned in this location and is not currently a part of the playing fields which is utilized by pupils and would not result in the loss of any playing pitches. It is therefore considered that quality and quantity of pitch provision and the ability to make use of the playing field would not be prejudiced by the proposal. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy OSC2 of the Local Plan.

10.0 Design, appearance and impact on the street scene

10.1 Design and external appearance is assessed against PPS1, Core Policy 8 and Local Plan Policy EN1.

10.2 Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) advises that ‘Good design should contribute positively to making

Page 36


9

places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’.

10.3 Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, states that: “All development in the Borough shall be sustainable, of a high quality design, improve the quality of the environment and address the impact of climate change.” Part 2 to that policy covers design and in sub section b) it states: “all development will respect its location and surroundings”.

10.4 Policy EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan states that “all development proposals are required to reflect a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surrounding”, in accordance with the criteria set out in that policy.

10.5 The design of the proposed extensions to the school are in keeping with the existing building in terms of design and will not have an adverse impact upon the character of the existing building or the character of the area. A condition can be attached to any permission to agree the materials and the colours used in rendering the building to ensure that they are in keeping with the existing building and the character of the area.

10.6 The changes to the existing building in terms of new windows, and elevation details will not impact upon the character of the area and will not be noticeable within the wider area. While it is noted that it is proposed to paint some of the areas around the windows to classrooms in different colours this will provide visual interest and break up the blandness of the elevations and will provide identification for the different year groups that use the school. This will not be harmful to the existing building or the character of the area.

10.7 The design of the proposed nursery building with flat and mono pitched roofs is in keeping with the existing and surrounding school building in terms of design and will not have an adverse impact upon the character of the existing and surrounding buildings or the character of the area. A condition can be attached to any permission to agree the materials and the colours used in rendering the building to ensure that they are in keeping with the existing building and the character of the area.

10.8 The nursery building is proposed to be positioned in the north west corner of the site with the entrance in the eastern elevation facing onto the school and share the main entrance with the school, thereby controlling who is entering and exiting the site. While it is acknowledged that the nursery building will be positioned closer to Kennet Road than the existing school building this is not

Page 37


10

considered to have an adverse impact upon the character of the area as there is no firm established building line along this part of Kennet Road and will still sit behind the building line of 38 Kennett Road and still provides a generous distance of 15m to the front boundary of the site. It is therefore considered that the sitting of the proposed nursery is not harmful to the character of the area.

10.9 The proposed car parking area will be moved to the south west corner of the site from the north west corner and will still face onto Kennett Road so its appearance will not be alien to the street scene and will not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene. Appropriate landscaping to allow for planting around the car park and to soften any impact can be secured via condition.

10.10 It is recognised that five trees will be removed from the site to make way for the nursery building and car park area. These trees are situated within the site and do not contribute to the character of the area and will not have any impact upon the character of the area as no trees on the boundary, that help screen the site and contribute to the character of the area will be removed. A suitable landscaping scheme can be conditioned to ensure replacement trees are planted. A tree assessment has being undertaken and the results will be reported to Committee.

10.11 It is therefore considered that this application is satisfactory in terms of design and impact upon the character of the area and in accordance with guidance given in PPS1, Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policy EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan.

10.12 A Sustainable Energy Report has been submitted as part of the application recommending the use of a Biomass boiler and the use of such a boiler can be conditioned.

11.0 Impact to neighbouring residential properties

11.1 The impact on adjacent residential properties is assessed against Core Policy 8 and Local Plan Policy EN1.

11.2 Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework, Core Strategy, states that “The design of all development within existing residential areas should respect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.”

11.3 Policy EN1 of the Adopted Local Plan states that “all development proposals are required to reflect a high standard of design and must be compatible with and/or improve their surrounding”, in accordance with the criteria set out in that policy.

11.4 The proposed nursery building will be sited so that it will be 23m from the nearest residential property and with the extensions to the

Page 38


11

school being to areas away from the boundaries closest to the residential properties these proposals will not have an adverse impact in terms of loss of light, overlooking or being overbearing.

11.5 Landscaping within the site will be secured via condition.

11.6 It is therefore considered that this application will not have any detrimental impact upon nearby residential properties and is consistent with Core Policy 8 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies EN1 and EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan.

12.0 Traffic and Highways

12.1 The relevant policies in terms of assessing traffic and highway impacts are Core Policy 7, Local Plan Policy T2 and the adopted parking standards.

12.2 Core Policy 7 requires that development proposals will have to make appropriate provisions for reducing the need to travel, widening travel choices and making travel by sustainable means of transport more attractive than the private car, improving road safety, improving air quality and reducing the impact of travel upon the environment.

12.3 Local Plan Policy T2 requires residential development to provide a level of parking appropriate to its location and overcome road safety problems while protecting the amenities of adjoining residents and the visual amenities of the area.

12.4 These proposals will lead to an increase in trips by 98 (according to the applicants documents) and the surrounding road network is deemed as capable in accepting such an increased number of trips. A new travel Plan has been prepared on behalf of the school with suitable measures to encourage sustainable forms of travel and the catchment area of the school allows for reduced numbers of children to use the car. Once this Travel Plan has been implemented numbers of pupil trips to and from school should be reduced and continued monitoring will ensure that the Travel Plan is adhered to.

12.5 There will be increase in parking on the site of three parking spaces to service an additional 14 members of staff who need to be accommodated under these proposals. Once again it is considered that the proposed Travel Plan will encourage staff to use other forms of transport to get to the School, especially those who live close to the school.

Page 39


12

12.6 The proposal in terms of affects upon traffic and highways will be fully considered once a full response has been received from the Council’s Highways and Traffic Section and will be fully reported on the amendment sheet.

PART C: RECOMMENDATION 13.0 Recommendation

13.1 Approve with conditions. 14.0 PART D: LIST OF CONDITION(S)

Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within three

years from the date of this permission.





2. The development hereby approved shall be implemented only in

accordance with the following plans and drawings hereby approved by

the Local Planning Authority:

(a) Drawing No. PL 100 511 C, Dated 18/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(b) Drawing No. PL 200 211 C, Dated 18/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(c) Drawing No. EL 100 251 C, Dated 18/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(d) Drawing No. EL 251 212 C, Dated 18/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(e) Drawing No. EL 251 213 C, Dated 18/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(f) Drawing No. PL 200 211 A, Dated 05/02/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010

(g) Drawing No. SE 252 210 C, Dated 22/01/2010 Recd On

19/02/2010



does not prejudice the amenity of the area and to comply with the

policies in The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

3. Samples of external materials to be used on the development hereby

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

Planning Authority before the scheme is commenced on site and the

development shall be carried out in accordance with the details

Page 40


13

approved.




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

access road, pathways and communal areas within the development

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

Local Planning Authority before the scheme is commenced on site and

the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details

approved.




5. No development shall commence on site until a detailed landscaping

and tree planting scheme has been submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme should include

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

density, position and planting heights of new trees and shrubs.

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

planting season following completion of the development. Within a

five year period following the implementation of the scheme, if any of

the new or retained trees or shrubs should die, are removed or become

seriously damaged or diseased, then they shall be replaced in the next

planting season with another of the same species and size as agreed in

the landscaping tree planting scheme by the Local Planning Authority.

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

accordance with Policy EN3 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough

2004.

6. No development shall commence until tree protection measures during

construction of the development for existing retained trees (as

identified on the approved landscaping scheme) have been submitted

to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These

measures shall be implemented prior to works beginning on site and

shall be provided and maintained during the period of construction

works.

REASON To ensure the satisfactory retention of trees to be

maintained in the interest of visual amenity and to meet the objectives

of Policy EN4 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

7. No development shall commence on site until details of the proposed

boundary treatment including position, external appearance, height and

Page 41


14

materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning

Authority. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied, a

suitable means of his boundary treatment shall be implemented on site

prior to the first occupation of the development and retained at all time

on the future.

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

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

8. The parking spaces and turning area shown on the approved plan shall be provided on site prior to occupation of the development and

retained at all times in the future for the parking of motor vehicles.

REASON To ensure that adequate on-site parking provision is

available to serve the development and to protect the amenities of the

area in accordance with Policy T3 of The Local Plan for Slough 2004.

9. No development shall begin until details of a scheme (Working

Method Statement) to control the environmental effects of

construction work has been submitted to and approved in writing by

the Local Planning Authority.

The scheme shall include:

(vii) control of noise

(viii) control of dust, smell and other effluvia

(ix) control of surface water run off

(x) site security arrangements including hoardings

(xi) proposed method of piling for foundations

(xii) construction working hours, hours during the construction

phase, when delivery vehicles taking materials are allowed to enter or

leave the site.

(xiiii) Parking for site workers and contract staff.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

scheme or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local

Planning Authority.

REASON In the interests of amenity of nearby residents and highway

safety in accordance with Core Policies 7 and 8 of The Slough Local

Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Development


10. The development is to be carried out in accordance with the findings

and recommendation set out in the Sustainability Report produced by

CBG Consultants Ltd Dated February 2010.

REASON To ensure that sustainable measures are undertaken in the

new development in accordance with Core Policy 8 of The Slough

Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 - 2026,

Page 42


15

Development Plan Document, December 2008.

11. No development shall commence until details of the proposed bin

store (to include siting, design and external materials) have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The approved stores shall be completed prior to first occupation of the

development and retained at all times in the future for this purpose.

REASON In the interests of visual amenity of the site in accordance

with Policy EN1 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

12. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby granted permission,

the submitted school travel plan shall implemented and shall be

reviewed on a annual basis in accordance with the timescale laid out in

the plan.

REASON To reduce travel to work by private car, to meet the

objectives of Policy T1 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004 to

meet the objectives of the Slough Integrated Transport Strategy.

13. No development shall be begun until details of the cycle parking

provision (including location, housing and cycle stand details) have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with

these details prior to the occupation of the development and shall be

retained at all times in the future for this purpose.

REASON To ensure that there is adequate cycle parking available at

the site in accordance with Policy T8 of The Adopted Local Plan for

Slough, 2004 and to meet the objectives of the Slough Integrated

Transport Strategy.

14. During the construction phase of the development hereby permitted,

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

09.30 and 14:30 to 16.30 hours to Mondays - Fridays, 08.00 - 13.00

hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank/Public

Holidays.

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

site in accordance with the objectives of Policy EN26 of The Adopted


15. Full details of the surface water disposal from the access road and car

parking area(s) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the

Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the

development hereby approved.

REASON To prevent the risk of flooding in accordance with Policy

EN32 of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004.

Page 43


16

Informative(s)

1. This decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Local Plan for Slough 2004 and the Slough Local

Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 - 2026, as set out

below, (to Supplementary Planning Guidance) and to all relevant

material considerations.

Planning Policy Statement 1 (Creating Sustainable Communities),

Core Policies 7 (Transport) and 8 (Sustainability & the Environment)

of The Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 -

2026, Development Plan Document, December 2008 and Polices EN1

(Standard of Design), T2 (Parking Restraint) and OSC2 (Protection of

School Playing Fields) of The Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004.




Section on 01753 477340.

Page 44


Applic. No: P/03949/001

Registration Date: 28-Jan-2010 Ward: Upton

Officer: Fariba Ismat

Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. T Bansel

Agent: Mr. P Mackrory 17, Bissley Drive, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6

3UX

Location: 17, Lascelles Road, Slough, SL3 7PN

Proposal: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION WITH

LEAN-TO-ROOF INCORPORATING TWO SKY LIGHTS,

FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION WITH PART HIPPED/PART

FLAT ROOF INCORPORATING TWO SKY LIGHTS, TWO

STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH PART FLAT/PART

HIPPED ROOF WITH TWO SKY LIGHTS ON ITS SOUTH

WESTERN ELEVATION AND LOFT EXTENSION AND

CONVERSION INTO HABITABLE ROOM WITH REAR

DORMER WINDOW.

Recommendation: Refuse

AGENDA ITEM 7

Page 45


P/03949/001 1.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Having considered the relevant Policies below, the development is considered to be contrary to the Council’s adopted Residential Extension Guidelines and is being recommended for refusal for the reasons as set out at the end of this report.

1.2 This application is a householder application which would normally

be determined by officers under the approved scheme of

delegation; however it has been called in for determination by

Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Balvinder Bains.

The reasons as set out in that letter are detailed in the main report

and an Officer response given:

1.3 The reasons stated by Councillor Bains for requesting that this application be bought before Planning Committee for determination are set out below:

• It is very clearly stated in the new planning guidelines that

the 2m rule only applies if you are building a second floor

extension next to where a similar extension has been built by

a neighbour up to the boundary. This is not the case in this

application as his neighbours original house is build close to

the boundary. His property is detached and will have a visual

gap of 1.3m on one side and in excess of 3m on the other at

first floor level. The rules are very ambiguous and Mr Bansal

believes they are being misinterpreted to his disadvantage

by the planning department.

• Mr Bansal has read the new guide lines and there are

several references to a 1m gap to the property line at first

floor level. The application conforms to this guideline as it is

his intension to maintain the access he has at the side of his

property to the rear garden. This visual gap of 1.3m in

addition to the 1m set back from the front of his property is

very much in line with several properties on the road.

Therefore the street scene will not be compromised.

• Mr Bansal would be left with a room of about 1.5m internal

width if the 2m rule was applied. This would be too narrow

even for use as an ensuite bathroom as Fariba suggested in

her mail to him. She also said he could change the layout to

get 3 bedrooms at the back of the house instead of the 2 he

plans. However, they would be too narrow and not give him

Page 46


what he wants to achieve. His plan is to construct 1 extra

bedroom and additional bathrooms for his family of 6. The

loft is to be used as a Family/Games room. So full height is

required. Additionally he needs space in case his wife’s

mother who is 75 needs to move in with his family. She is

independent and in good health now but in future she may

have to be looked after.

• There are several examples he has provided where the gap

between properties on Lascelles Road, that are less than or

equal to what he is proposing. I believe his application is

very much in line with the street scene and precedence has

already been set. Mr Bansal’s application has 1.3m Visual

gap with No 15 and more than 3m with No 19 Lascelles

Road.

• None of the extensions on the road that are built to the

property line on the ground floor have a 1m set back at the

first floor and he has provided pictures supporting this. His

house would be the exception and not the norm if the 2m

rule was applied.

• Why does only a 2m gap counter the terracing effect? Mr

Bansal’s house is of a totally different design and builds to

his neighbours. The building materials are different from the

bricks to the roof material. It would be impossible to notice

any terracing with the 1.3m visual gap his application

proposes

• Mr Bansal’s application should be considered on its own

merits because of the uniqueness of the road with house

only on one side and no residential property opposite that

may be affected by a visual space.

50 cm roof drop down

• This has been referred to building control and we await their

decision.

• The drop down would make the loft room ceiling height

significantly lower and uninhabitable. There is a precedence

of no drop down on Lascelles Road for properties with loft

rooms

• A drop down will make the construction of the roof much

more complicated, as Mr Bansal intends to rebuild the entire

Page 47


roof structure. Furthermore it would not allow sufficient space

at the top of the stairs leading to the roof for a fire

break/lobby. The stairs would need to be moved and would

impact the layout throughout the house. The 2 metre visual

gap further compounds this. Mr Bansal may need to

incorporate a Dormer window to give him space for the stairs

to the loft which would be far worse on the street scene than

al level roof or the 1.3m visual gap he has.

• Mr Bansal property has no residential properties opposite

which over look him so no one would be affected by having

no roof step down. These special circumstances need to be

considered.

• The government guidelines for permitted development for double story extensions only require roof lines to be no higher than existing and that is all Mr Bansal is asking for.

1.4 These matters are dealt with in the main report below PART A: BACKGROUND 2.0 Proposal

2.1 The applicant proposes to erect a single storey side extension with lean-to-roof incorporating two sky lights, first floor side extension with part hipped/part crown top incorporating two sky lights, two storey rear extension with part hipped roof and part crown top with two sky lights on its south western elevation and loft extension to provide habitable room with rear dormer window.

Proposal for three onsite parking spaces; one in the side garage and two in the area in front of the dwelling have been proposed.

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

located on the south eastern side of Lascelles Road. The main dwelling is built with a hipped and pitched roof and has a front bay window which is built with gable roof. The property has a side garage with flat roof and a side access way to the rear of the dwelling. On the other side the dwelling has a single storey conservatory built with lean-to-roof. The front garden of the property is partly hard surfaced and is capable of accommodating one parking space; the remaining front garden is soft landscaped. The property has a substantial rear garden with a large tree at mid point of the garden close the boundary of neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 Lascelles Road.

Page 48


3.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential. On the south eastern side of Lascelles Road the street is characterised by detached residential properties of varying sizes styles and architectural designs. Some of the existing properties have been substantially extended and there are varying sizes of gaps between existing extended and un-extended dwellings. On the north western side of Lascelles Road is Slough Grammar School and Lacselles Park.

4.0 Neighbour Notification 4.1 The neighbours at Nos. 15, 17 and Slough Grammar School at

Lascelles Road and neighbours at Nos. 6, 8 Buckland Avenue were notified of the application. No objections were raised with regards to the proposal at no. 17 Lascelles Road.

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

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

• Core Policies 7 and 8 (Sustainability and the Environment) of Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Adopted Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 (Development Plan Document - 2008);

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

• Council’s approved Residential Extensions Guidelines – Supplementary Planning Document, 2010.

6.0 Design and Appearance/ Impact on Street Scene

6.1 The proposed first floor side extension would be built with a part flat top/part pitched roof in line with the height of the main roof. The proposed roof height does not comply with the 0.5m set down from the main ridge as set out in the Council’s adopted guidelines.

6.2 The proposed first floor side extension would be built on top of the existing side garage and would retain a 0.75m gap from the boundary line with neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 and overall gap of 1.18m between the two dwellings. The neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 is built close to the boundary and when scaled on a site visit only retains a small gap of 0.45m from the boundary line and where the chimneys are constructed, a smaller gap of 0.19m from the boundary is retained. By reference to the submitted plans, the existing gap at first floor level between the host property and the neighbouring house at 15 Lascelles Road is 3.9 metres, although

Page 49


there is a discrepancy between the existing elevations and existing floor plans, with the elevation plans showing a gap of 3.5 metres. The actual gap between the subject dwelling and neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 has been verified on site (29/03/2010) and is 1.18m. The proposals for the first floor side extension will reduce the overall gap at first floor level from 3.9 metres between buildings to between 0.95m and I.18 metres.

6.3 Paragraph 5.4 of the Council’s adopted Residential Extensions Guidelines – Supplementary Planning Document, 2010 states that: “Two storey/first floor side extensions should be set off the side boundary by a minimum of 1 metre” and further adds: “In cases where a two storey/first floor side extension exists and is built up to the boundary, planning applications for similar extensions on the neighbouring property will not normally be permitted unless a minimum two metre gap can be achieved at first floor level between the two extended properties.”

6.4 In his submission on behalf of the applicant Councillor Bains states that, the extension guidelines relate to circumstances where a neighbour has already extended up to the boundary and that a gap of 1.3 metres would be retained between buildings. In response it should be stated that, although it is agreed that the neighbour has not extended to the boundary and that it is the dwelling as originally sited, it is the view of Officers that the principle seeking to minimise enclosure of the airspace at first floor level and the consequential need to avoid visual terracing would equally apply in this instance. The need to retain a gap of 2 metres is considered to be the minimum break required between buildings to achieve this. Although the applicant refers to a retained gap of 1.3 metres between buildings, this gap is actually 1.18m confirmed by measurement taken on a site visit on 29/03/2010. Therefore an overall set in of 1.55m at first floor level would be required from the boundary line which together with the existing 0.45m gap between no. 15 and the boundary line would provide the required minimum 2m gap at first floor level.

6.5 By reference to Councillor Bains letter, it is argued that the retention of a 1.3 metre gap together with a set back at first floor level of 1 metre from the front of their property will be sufficient to avoid visual terracing and is not an unusual scenario within the street scene. In response it should be noted that by reference to the site visit, the gap between the buildings is 1.18 metres. By reference to paragraph 5.8 of the adopted Residential Extension guidelines, it should be noted that the prime function of the 1 metre set back at first floor level when combined with a set down of the roof is to ensure that the extension appears subordinate to the main house

Page 50


as well as helping to reduce any terracing effect within the street.

6.6 Councillor Bains further states on behalf of the applicant that to accommodate the full gap of 2 metres between buildings would reduce the width of the internal space within the first floor side extension to 1.5 metres, which would in practice be too narrow to use even for an en suite bathroom. The additional accommodation is required to meet the needs of a large family of six persons. In response it is acknowledged that the space remaining would be less usable, however, the total space that would be available at first floor level including the first floor rear extension, which would be 9.25m in width and to a depth of 4.25 metres would still be not insignificant. The proposals as they currently stand include the provision for 3 no. en suite bathrooms and a family bathroom at first floor level. There is a further large area taken up by landing and wardrobe space. It is considered that the internal space could be reorganised to provide a reasonable level of accommodation.

6.7 A number of examples are cited by Councillor Bains on behalf of the applicant showing reduced breaks between existing and extended houses within Lascelles Road. It is the view of the applicant that the host property would be the only property in Lascelles Road which would have a first floor side extension not lining through with the ground floor. It is further argued that the host property is of a different design to the neighbouring house and this coupled with a difference in materials and the fact that the land is open on the opposite side of Lascelles Road, would mean that there would be no terracing effect.

6.8 It is acknowledged that Lascelles Road is characterised by a range of house types and that the gaps between buildings does vary between quite small breaks to more substantial breaks. However, it is not considered that small breaks between buildings constitute the character of Lascelles Road. The mitigating circumstances relating to the design and external appearance of the host dwelling, together with the openness of the playing fields opposite the application site, as suggested by the applicant, would not in the view of Officers, reduce the potential terracing effect of the proposals. Members will be aware that when debating the Residential Extension Guidelines there was some concern about situations such as this whereby the applicant would be required to provide more than a 1 metre set back at first floor level. Members did enquire as to whether there would be scope to compensate such applicants by allowing larger extensions to the rear. In this case the applicant will achieve a 9.25m wide two storey rear extension after the provision of the further required set in of 0.8m at first floor level and a depth of 4.25 metres. Although, it is acknowledged that this would not result in any specific adverse

Page 51


impact on either neighbouring property, the depth does nonetheless exceed the guideline, which sets the maximum permitted depth for a two storey rear extension at first floor level to 3.3 metres, except where site circumstances would allow deeper extensions to be provided.

6.9 Councillor Bains on behalf of the applicant has indicated that the requirement for a set down from the roof of 500mm, to comply with the Adopted Residential Extension Guidelines, would render the roofspace unusable, as it would not be possible to achieve the necessary internal headroom. Further, the requirement for an additional set in from the side would require the stair case to be moved, which in itself, would necessitate a complete revision to the internal layout and would result in the stair case entering the roof closer to its centre, rendering the space less usable. Having undertaken discussions with the Council’s Building Control Section, it is confirmed that the required set down of 500mm would in this instance, result in there being insufficient headroom, thereby rendering the roofspace unusable. However, paragraph 5.9 of the Adopted Residential Extension Guidelines states that: “The requirement for a minimum 0.5 metre set down from the ridge will only be relaxed if it can be demonstrated that it is not feasible due to technical constraints. As the scheme design currently stands the proposed roof will appear overly dominant, however subject to the further set in as required, this will reduce its dominance. Given the design of this particular property and subject to achieving the desired set in at first floor level together with the issues relating to internal headroom, a relaxation of this particular requirement would be acceptable in this instance. However, it acknowledged that the required set in would necessitate the internal stair case being repositioned closer to the centre of the room and that this would render the space within the loft to be less usable. It is noted from the plans, however, that the space is proposed as a games room and not as habitable accommodation per se.

6.10 As such the proposed first floor side extension is not considered to be acceptable as it does not comply with the Adopted Residential Guidelines which seek to achieve/retain a minimum 2m visual gap between existing/extended buildings. As such the proposal is considered to have an adverse impact on the street scene.

6.11 A relaxation of the required set down from the main roof can be considered in this instance, for the reasons set out in paragraph 6.9 above. However, this assumes the additional set in without which the proposed roof would appear bulky and overly dominant thereby detracting from the appearance and character of the host property. Subject to the additional set in being secure at first floor level, then the lack of set down would be more acceptable within the existing street scene.

Page 52


6.12 The proposed single storey side extension would replace the existing side conservatory with a brick work side extension with lean-to-roof. The proposed single storey side extension would be built in line with the front wall of the dwelling with a front door. The lean-to-roof would match the hipped roof of the main dwelling and the proposed sky lights are considered to be of an acceptable size and design and therefore; are considered to be acceptable. Normally properties are preferred to have a single front door; however; in this instance the proposed second front door is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the design and appearance of the main dwelling and is not considered to lead to subdivision of the dwelling and therefore is considered to be acceptable.

6.13 The proposed two storey rear extension at the both ground and first floor level would be build to a depth of 4.25m with a width of 10m at first floor and 11.15m at ground floor. It should be noted that the width of the proposed rear extension would be reduced as a result of the required further set in at first floor, however; the reduction in width is not considered to result in any negative impact on the design and appearance of the original dwelling or impact on either neighbouring dwelling. The proposed depth at ground level is considered to be acceptable as it is in keeping with the threshold set out in the adopted guidelines for rear extensions. However; at first floor is contrary to the adopted guidelines which only allow 3.3m deep rear extension at first floor level

6.14 However; it is noted that the neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 has got planning permission for erection of a two storey rear extension, 4m deep at first floor and 7.64m deep at ground floor beyond the original rear wall of the subject dwelling, therefore; the proposed 4.25m deep first floor rear extension at no. 17 is considered to be acceptable. As any negative impact on no. 15 is considered to be mitigated due to their large rear extension that is currently under construction. As for the neighbouring dwelling at no. 19 there is 3.2m gap between the two dwellings. The gap is considered to be an adequate separation distance and is considered to be wide enough to prevent negative impact from the first floor rear extension of no. 17 on the neighbouring dwelling at no. 19.

6.15 The design and appearance of the proposed two storey rear extension is considered to respect and be in keeping with the design and appearance of the main building. In terms of size and scale; the proposal is considered to be in proportion with neighbouring dwellings extensions and with the host dwelling and the plot of land the dwelling is located at.

6.16 The proposed loft conversion would require the proposed front roof of the side extension to be built in line with the existing main roof of the dwelling so that the head height for the stairs can be achieved.

Page 53


As stated in the paragraphs above, a relaxation of the normal set down would secure the necessary headroom, although it is acknowledged that a repositioning of the stair case to allow for the additional first floor set in would render the loft space less usable. At the rear; a dormer is window is proposed which is considered to be an acceptable size and scale.

6.17 Whilst the proposed two storey rear extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, appearance and scale, the proposed first floor side extension is not considered to be acceptable due to its negative impact on the street scene.

7.0 Impact on Neighbours 7.1 The proposed first floor side extension on its own merits is not

considered to have a negative impact on the neighbouring dwellings at no. 15. .

7.2 The proposed single storey side extension with lean-to-roof would be set off the boundary by 0.15m. Therefore; there would be no encroachment on neighbouring dwelling at no. 19. The proposed single storey side extension would be built along the dept of the main dwelling to a height of 3.45m and would project to the rear by 4.25m. The lean-to-roof would incorporate three skylights and is not considered to impact the neighbouring dwelling at no. 19 in an adverse way.

7.3

The proposed two storey rear extension that incorporates a rear dormer window at the rear is not considered to have an adverse impact on either neighbouring dwellings. As the proposal would keep a 3.2m distance from no. 19 and neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 is in the process of building a 4m deep rear extension at first floor and 7.64m at ground level.

7.4 As such; the proposed two storey rear extension is not considered to have an adverse impact on either neighbouring dwellings.

8.0 Amenity Space

8.1 The Council’s adopted Residential Extensions Guidelines – Supplementary Planning Document, 2010 set out that for a house with 4 bedrooms a minimum private rear garden depth of 15m is to be provided.

8.2 The subject property would retain a back garden of approximately 40m long x 12m wide after the construction of the rear extension. The retained back garden complies with the above Guidelines requirement and therefore; is considered to be acceptable.

Page 54


9.0 Parking 9.1 The Parking Standards of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004

for a 4+ bedroom house require three on site car parking spaces.

9.2 The applicant has submitted a car parking plan, showing three onsite parking spaces, one being the side garage and two in the front area of the property. The proposed parking layout is considered to be acceptable as it complies with the requirement of the Parking Standards of the Adopted Local Plan, 2004.

10.0 Summary 10.1 Subject to the required 1.55m set in from the boundary line being

achieved at first floor level in respect of the side extension, then it would be acceptable to allow a relaxation of the normal set down from the roof in this instance, without there being an adverse impact on the street scene.

10.2 It is acknowledged that the required set in for the first floor side extension would result in a narrowing of the internal floorspace, however, overall the scale of the extensions is not insignificant and it is considered that a rationalisation of the internal layout could achieve a sizeable improvement in the level of accommodation currently enjoyed by the occupiers. Whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant is unwilling to provide any further set in at first floor level, it is considered that without this further set in the gap between buildings will be reduced to a level which would result in visual terracing. Whilst the applicant has provided evidence that a set down from the roof would result in technical issues around internal headroom, the roof would still appear rather bulky, However, if an additional set in is achieved this bulkiness would be reduced. Thus the additional set in would achieve both an acceptable gap between buildings and a roof structure would appear less bulky in the street scene.

PART C: RECOMMENDATION

11.0 Recommendation 11.1 Refusal 12.0 PART D: REFUSAL REASONS

Reason(s)

1. The proposed first floor side extension by virtue of its proximity to the

boundary line with no. 15 Lascelles Road would result in a greater

degree of enclosure thereby reducing the visual gap to an unacceptable

level which would result in visual terracing contrary to Planning

Page 55


Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Core Policy 8 of The Slough Local

Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026, Development

Plan Document, December 2008, Policies EN1, EN2 and H15 of The

Adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004 and Council's approved

Residential Extensions Guidelines - Supplementary Planning

Documents, 2010.

Page 56


SLOUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 14th April 2010

PART 1

FOR INFORMATION

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

WARD(S) ALL

Ref Appeal Decision P/13680/001 7 & 9 Hazlemere Road

Construction of 2 No.3 bedroom terraced dwellings and a part double storey rear extension to the existing house (No. 9).

Appeal Dismissed

4th March 2010

P/14376/001 267 Stoke Road Proposed double storey rear and part side extension.

Appeal Dismissed

4th March 2010

P/14540/000 81 Hurworth Avenue Proposed conversion of garage to a study, fitting a door to the open porch and the provision of a new parking space Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the integral garage into a habitable room for use as a study. The conversion would comprise the installation of a window and the bricking up of the existing front elevation. A second parking space is proposed in front of the dwelling, accessed via an extended dropped kerb. Planning permission was refused on the grounds that: The proposal is incompatible with the intention of the condition imposed on planning permission P/10118/3 for the development of the estate as it creates an excessive area of hardstanding at the expense of space for landscaping on a development that has limited opportunities for landscaping to the front of the dwellings. It is therefore considered that the proposal will have a detrimental

Appeal allowed subject to conditions.

4th March 2010

AGENDA ITEM 8

Page 57


impact on the street scene and set an unacceptable precedent for the erosion of the character of the area. In these circumstances the retention of the garage is essential to avoid irreconcilable conflicts between the provision of the parking and retention of space for landscaping in the interests of the character of the area. The proposals will be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Development Plan Document, December 2008) and policies H17 and EN1of the adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004. The Inspector concluded that: The formation of the parking space would entail the removal of a tree and an area of grass and shrub planting. I consider that the avenue of trees is the key element of the street’s landscaping. The small, isolated areas of low level shrubs and grass contribute comparatively little and the removal of one of these areas as proposed would have an insignificant effect on the character and appearance of the area. Although a tree would be removed as part of the proposal, that particular tree sits behind a more prominent street tree and its loss would therefore have only a minor impact. I weigh these comparatively slight negative impacts against the potential benefits the proposal would bring by reducing demand for on-street parking. I saw at my site visit that the area is under some pressure for car parking, with only very limited space available on-street. The appellant argues that the existing garage is too small to provide a practical parking space and the Council’s highways advisor acknowledges that the garage is currently not used for this purpose. The provision of a more convenient off-street parking space would reduce demand for on-street parking and hence help to reduce visual clutter. This benefit, although also minor, would be sufficient in this case to outweigh any harm that would be caused by the loss of the small area of soft landscaping. I conclude that the proposed parking space would not harm the character or appearance of this part of Hurworth Avenue. The proposal therefore accords with Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policies EN1 and H17 of The Local Plan for Slough, which aim to ensure that development is of a high quality design, is compatible with its surroundings and that garages should only be converted where, among other things, parking can still be provided. While I have noted that planning permission has been granted for similar proposals locally, I have decided this appeal on its own merits. Having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I impose a condition listing the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. I also impose suitably worded conditions requiring the use of matching materials and the provision of a visibility splay, as requested by the Council, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and the safety of highway users. I note that a street light would need to be relocated and leave this matter to be resolved with the highway authority.

Page 58


P/14555/000 26 Grasholm Way Garage conversion Planning permission was sought for the conversion of the integral garage into a habitable room for use as a study. The conversion would comprise the installation of a window and the bricking up of the existing front elevation. A second parking space is proposed in front of the dwelling, replacing the existing green area to the front of the site. Planning permission was refused on the grounds that: The proposal is incompatible with the intention of the condition imposed on planning permission P/10344/5 for the development of the estate as it creates an excessive area of hardstanding at the expense of space for landscaping on a development that has limited opportunities for landscaping to the front of the dwellings. It is therefore considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the street scene and set an unacceptable precedent for the erosion of the character of the area. In these circumstances the retention of the garage is essential to avoid irreconcilable conflicts between the provision of the parking and retention of space for landscaping in the interests of the character of the area. The proposals will be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1, Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006-2026 (Development Plan Document, December 2008), and policies H17 and EN1of the adopted Local Plan for Slough, 2004.

The development if permitted would lead to an excessively wide vehicle crossover to the detriment of on street parking and also pedestrian safety and convenience. The development is contrary to Core Policy 7 of the Slough Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2026 Submission Document, November 2007. The Inspector concluded that: The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is apparent in the surrounding streets that large numbers of parked vehicles can have as much adverse visual impact as extensive areas of hardstanding. However, to my mind, vehicles parked in front of the appeal property and its immediate neighbours on the shared drive have little impact on the street scene or surrounding area. This is because of the curving nature of the shared drive and the extent to which vehicles are screened by the mounded form of the open space and by the hedge defining the boundary with the shared drive. In practice, the adjacent open space provides more effective landscaping to the front of this particular row of properties than the small individual grassed or planted areas at each house. Thus I consider that loss of that small area at no. 26, and its use as a replacement parking space, would not materially harm the area’s character and appearance. Given these site specific circumstances, the proposal would not set a precedent leading to erosion of the area’s character. Nor would it conflict with LP Policies EN1 or H17, or Policy 8 of the Council’s Core Strategy

Appeal allowed subject to conditions

23rd March

2010

Page 59


2006-2026. The Council’s second refusal reason suggests the proposal would also be harmful because it would necessitate a wider dropped kerb, with a consequent loss of on-street parking. However, as I have already noted, no. 26 is on a shared drive: this is level throughout and has no dropped kerbs other than the one at the point where the driveway meets the adjacent highway. The proposal would not require any alteration to existing kerb arrangements, nor affect on-street parking or pedestrian safety in the area. I therefore give little weight to this refusal reason. No objection has been raised to the external alterations necessary for the proposed conversion. Subject to a condition requiring the use of matching materials, in the interests of visual amenity, I find no reason to take a different view. Therefore, having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude overall that the appeal should be allowed. A condition requiring compliance with the approved plans is also appropriate for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

P/01633/007 Christchurch Hall, Wexham Road Demolition of existing church hall and erection of 9 no. houses and revised access. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing church hall and construction of 9 no. x two and three bedroom houses together with parking and access. This was an outline application with access only being an approved matter. The appeal to the refusal of the above application was refused for the following reasons: Although the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area or to the living conditions of future or neighbouring occupiers, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of the potential loss of community infrastructure. The lack of a direct link between the redevelopment of the appeal site and a contribution towards the provision of alternative community facilities whether at St Paul’s or elsewhere is a compelling objection. The applicants also sort a full award of costs as it was asserted that the Council acted unreasonably in failing to determine the application within the normal time limits, produce sufficient evidence to substantiate its reasons for refusal, used different policies from a previous reason for refusal, did not undertake an objective assessment of the scheme and required the appellant to complete a Section 106 Planning obligation which did not meet the tests circular. The application n for costs was vigorously defended by the Council, with supporting evidence. The Inspector concluded that: The Council, in my view, took an unacceptably long time to determine the planning application given the circumstances of the

Appeal dismissed Costs allowed

26th March

2010

Page 60


case. Evidence was presented of prolonged and unexplained periods when the Council did not respond to the appellant’s approaches to progress matters, especially in the period following the Committee’s deferral. No meaningful discussion or progress was made for many months, and then only, it would appear, after Councillors had been contacted by the appellant. The Council did not produce sufficient evidence to satisfactorily explain the delays nor why the application could not have been determined earlier. The Council’s reference to the appellant’s right to appeal against non-determination is not in my view a substitute for good practice, including careful and on-going case management. This in my view represented unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Council with respect to paragraphs B10 and B15 of the Circular. I consider that the Council mismanaged the consideration of this planning application by introducing different policy considerations compared to a previous planning application on the appeal site. The Council did not refer to garden depths or amenity space in the first development scheme although it involved a much denser form of development. No reference was made to saved LP Policy H14 or the Development Control Guidelines for the Provision of Amenity Space around Residential Properties in the reasons for refusal of the earlier development. In assessing the impact of the proposed development the Council placed too much reliance on this out-dated guidance in its consideration of the layout and the quality of accommodation for future occupiers and privacy of neighbouring occupiers. The 1990 Development Control Guidelines pre-date adopted development plan policies and national policy advice in PPS1 and PPS3. The latter advocate a qualitative assessment and not the rigid application of quantitative standards, especially in the context of a sustainable, previously developed, urban site. It can be seen from my decision that I found the Council had not produced sufficient evidence to show that the proposal would be out of character with its surroundings in terms of the pattern of development, urban grain, plot sizes and garden depth. In my view the Council’s position did not reflect an objective assessment of the impact of a proposed frontage development along a main road. Rather it relied on generalised assertions about the relationship of the site to the pattern of residential development in the residential streets to the rear of the appeal site. The appeal proposal accorded with minimum density requirements and up to date development plan policies. To conclude I consider the Council failed to provide sufficient evidential basis for the stance it took in Refusal Reasons 1, 2 and 3, contrary to paragraphs B15, B16, B18, B19 and B29 of the Circular. Turning to refusal Reason 4, I will address the procedural issue first. The Council’s late withdrawal of part of refusal Reason 4 was clearly unreasonable behaviour in the terms of paragraph B4 of the Circular. The fact that such a widening line did not encroach into the development site and that this information was readily available to the Council, compounds its unreasonable behaviour. It is incumbent on authorities to check their own records and not to rely,

Page 61


as in this case, upon the persistence of the appellant to establish the facts of the case. In my decision I have accepted that there is a need for the appellant to contribute towards new or enhanced community facilities locally in order to comply with the requirements of Core Policy 6 of the LDFCP. This could be by way of a contribution towards the provision of the planned facilities at St Paul’s or alternative local facilities. Nonetheless, within the terms of the tests in Circular 05/2005 the Council must be able to show that the scale of the contribution is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and not making up for existing deficiencies or paying for maintenance. In the case of the completed S106 Unilateral Undertaking, I found that the Council was unable to provide me with any details of a specific local highway or transportation project for which the general transportation funds were being collected. Without a clear audit trail between the contribution being made and the infrastructure being provided I was unable to satisfy myself that the contribution directly related to the scale of the impact of the proposed development. Therefore in this respect I conclude that the Council acted unreasonably in terms of paragraph B29 of the Circular, in that it did not demonstrate that the submitted Unilateral Undertaking relating to the general transportation contribution met the tests set out in Circular 05/2005. Therefore for the reasons given above I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in Circular 03/2009, has been demonstrated with respect to Reasons 1, 2, 3 and that part of Reason 4 which relates to the highway widening and a transportation contribution, but not to a contribution towards provision of new or enhanced community facilities. I therefore conclude that a partial award of costs is justified. In exercise of my powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other powers enabling me in that behalf, I HEREBY ORDER that the Slough Borough Council shall pay to St Paul’s Parochial Church Council, the costs of the appeal proceedings limited to those costs incurred in respect to the Council’s first 3 reasons for refusal and that part of Reason 4 relating to a S106 Obligation for highway widening and a transportation contribution.

P/03262/003 189 Stoke Road Erection of a two storey side extension with pitch roof. Appeal against a refusal of planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension with pitched roof at 189 Stoke Road, Slough. Planning permission was refused on the grounds that: The proposed two-storey side extension by reason of its siting in proximity to the side boundary would close the visual gap between

Appeal allowed subject to conditions

30th March

2010

Page 62


two properties, thereby setting the unwanted precedent that would result in the visual terracing of buildings, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the original property, the surrounding area and the visual amenity of the street scene. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Planning Policy Statements 1 and 3, Core Policy 8 of the Slough Local development Framework Core Strategy (2006 – 2026) Submission Document November 2007 Policies H15, EN1 & EN2 of the Adopted Local Plan for Slough 2004. Issues a) The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding area. The Inspector concluded in respect of a) that: “The proposed extension would close the gap between the semi-detached house at no. 189 and the taller detached property at no. 191. However this is a relatively narrow space, and the extension would be set back from the front building line of the existing buildings, and below the existing ridgelines. Thus, whilst the loss of the existing gap would be apparent from a small section of the street directly opposite, the development would have little impact on medium and long range views along the street. It would not, to my mind, have any significant adverse impact on the street scene’s established character”.

P/14502/001 6 Aldenham Close Proposed ground floor side extension

Appeal dismissed

30th March

2010

Page 63

Page 64


ENFORCEMENT NOTICES, BREACH OF CONDITION NOTICES, SECTION 215 NOTICES

ONGOING TO DATE (29.03.10) PART 1

Planning Reference and Officer

Legal Ref/ Officer

Address And Activity

Details of actions Planning prefaced (P) Legal prefaced (L)

2010/00039 BL

60 Lower Cippenham Lane Breach of Saturday Working Condition

(P) Breach of condition notice served 8 March 2010. Compliance by Sat 10 April 2010.

2008/00195/ BL

43 Oldway Lane Rea ext onto existing extension

(P) Memo to legal. Engross notice. Land charges informed. 11 Feb 2010 (P) Planning Enforcement Notice Served 8 March 2010. Compliance 8 March 2020.

2009/00140/ BL

2 Chester Road Sub Division of dwelling House

(P) Memo to legal. Engross notice 26 November 2009 (P) Notice served 21 December 2009 (P) Compliance in progress (P) Compliance achieved. Case closed

2009/00053/ BL

139 Upton Court Road Unauthorised Rear Outbuilding

(P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 22 October 2009. Compliance by 19 February 2010 (P) Compliance achieved. Case Closed.

2008/00268 BL

8 London Road Change use. Dwelling to Offices

(P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 9 October 2009. Compliance by 6 May 2010. (P) New planning application received.

2009/00044 BL

3-5 Meadfield Road Unauthorised Flue/Duct

(L) Instructions to legal (CF) 5 October 2009 (P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 15 October 2009. Compliance by 11 December 2009. (P) First hearing date 26th March 2010.

2009/00050 PR

CF T3/701

6 Chester Road Unauthorised Rear extension

(L) Instructions received 18 September 2009 (P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 23 September 2009 . Compliance 21 February 2010. (P) Enforcement Notice complied with.

2009/0149 PR

CF T3/698

65 Gloucester Avenue Depart Approved Plan

-

(L) Instructions received 21st August 2009 (P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 2 September 2009 Compliance due 30 June 2010.

AG

EN

DA

ITE

M 9

Page 6

5

2007/00269 BL

89 Paxton Avenue Breach of Condition

(P) Memo sent to legal and Land charges. 12 May 2008 (P) BOC Notice Served 29 May 2008. (P) Compliance by 29 August 2008. (P) New application received. (P) Application refused ( appeal awaited ) (P) Trial set for 22 June 2009. (P) 22 June 2009, pleaded guilty, £660.00 fine, £100.00 costs, £15.00 surcharge. (P) Considering further legal action (P) Further planning application refused 14 July 2009. (P) Appeal dismissed 9 December 2009. 4 Months to comply to 16 April 2010.

2006/00064

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Change of Use storage of portable modular units

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned on basis of undertaking to cease uses. (P) Injunction granted 9/04/09 Order served on land UU attached to cease unauth use and operations. (P) Case held in abeyance whilst awaiting decision on Planning Application – determined by ctte activity reduced. (P) Meeting re: Planning Application on 12/10/09 with agent and applicant present. Agreed comply with the Order of 09/04/09. Will place the pursuit of any further injunctions on hold. (P) 19/11/09 Application withdrawn. Applicant to resubmit imminently. Applications for final injunction remains on hold relatively small scale activity (likely to be commensurate with est. use)

Page 6

6

2006/00064a

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development portable modular units

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned.

2006/00082

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development hardstanding

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned.

2006/00419

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Change of Use storage of a travelling caravan

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/8, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned on basis of undertaking to cease uses.

Page 6

7

2006/00417

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development creation of a compound using double stacked shipping containers

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned. (P) Injunction granted 9/04/09 Order served on land UU attached to cease unauth use and operations. (P) Case held in abeyance whilst awaiting decision on Planning Application – determined by ctte activity reduced. (P) Meeting re: Planning Application on 12/10/09 with agent and applicant present. Agreed comply with the Order of 09/04/09. Will place the pursuit of any further injunctions on hold. (P) 19/11/09 Application withdrawn. Applicant to resubmit imminently. Applications for final injunction remains on hold relatively small scale activity (likely to be commensurate with est. use)

Page 6

8

2006/00416

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development creation of a storage facility using double stacked shipping containers

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned. (P) Injunction granted 9/04/09 Order served on land UU attached to cease unauth use and operations. (P) Case held in abeyance whilst awaiting decision on Planning Application – determined by ctte activity reduced. (P) Meeting re: Planning Application on 12/10/09 with agent and applicant present. Agreed comply with the Order of 09/04/09. Will place the pursuit of any further injunctions on hold. (P) 19/11/09 Application withdrawn. Applicant to resubmit imminently. Applications for final injunction remains on hold relatively small scale activity (likely to be commensurate with est. use)

Page 6

9

2006/00066

SQ 307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development fencing over 2 metres

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeals withdrawn, compliance, 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned. (P) Injunction granted 9/04/09 Order served on land UU attached to cease unauth use and operations. (P) Case held in abeyance whilst awaiting decision on Planning Application – determined by ctte activity reduced. (P) Meeting re: Planning Application on 12/10/09 with agent and applicant present. Agreed comply with the Order of 09/04/09. Will place the pursuit of any further injunctions on hold. (P) 19/11/09 Application withdrawn. Applicant to resubmit imminently. Applications for final injunction remains on hold relatively small scale activity (likely to be commensurate with est. use)

Page 7

0

2006/00082a

SQ T3/595

307/311 Colnbrook-by-Pass, Slough Development weighbridge

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/11/06. (P) Memo from Steven Quayle with a series of related questions. (P) Memo responded to and meeting has taken place. A site visit followed and the results have been passed to SQ. (P) Plans of site supplied to SQ on 27/3/07. (P) Enforcement Notice served 23/7/07, effective 27/8/07 compliance by 27/11/07 (P) Appeal lodged Appeals withdrawn, compliance 03/09/08, full award of costs to Council. (P) Application for Injunction order adjourned. (P) Injunction granted 9/04/09 Order served on land UU attached to cease unauth use and operations. (P) Case held in abeyance whilst awaiting decision on Planning Application – determined by ctte activity reduced. (P) Meeting re: Planning Application on 12/10/09 with agent and applicant present. Agreed comply with the Order of 09/04/09. Will place the pursuit of any further injunctions on hold. (P) 19/11/09 Application withdrawn. Applicant to resubmit imminently. Applications for final injunction remains on hold relatively small scale activity (likely to be commensurate with est. use)

2006/00377 WH

SH T3/585

46 Cockett Road, Slough Unauthorised erection of a single storey side and rear extension

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 19/9/06 (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 22/9/06. (P) Meeting with legal to discuss issues – 30/11/06 (P) Legal requested further copies of plans and photographs 14/12/06. Supplied 15/12/06. (P) Notice served 16/1/07, effective 20/2/07 for compliance 20/6/07. (P) Appeal lodged. (P) Appeal dismissed 16/8/07. New compliance date 16/12/07. (P) Papers being prepared for Legal for non compliance. (P) Meeting held regards sensitivity of case. The development does need to be demolished and the owner has initially agreed for direct action to be taken with a charge placed on the land. (P) Awaiting written authority from owner to allow builders to survey the site (P) Quotes from builders for default works 25/02/10 (P) To be put forward for default works approval at Planning Committee 17/03/10 (P) To be put forward to next cttee due to awaiting final quote

Page 7

1

2006/0133 PR

54/56 Canterbury Avenue, Slough. Change of use of domestic garage to commercial use, tyre fitting/storage.

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges Informed 27/03/06. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 18/4/06. (P) Draft Notice corrected and returned to Legal 23/6/06. (P) Notice served 17/8/06, effective 21/9/06 for compliance by 21/12/06. (P) Appeal lodged (P) Hearing date 12/4/07. (P) Hearing adjourned to 30/5/07 (P) Hearing took place result awaited. (P) Appeal dismissed. New compliance date of 5/4/08. (P) New Planning application received. (P) Application refused, prosecution papers being prepared. (P) Compliance achieved. (P) new compliant to be investigated (P) No action to be taken (P) Compliance achieved (P) new compliant – Feb 2010 - to be investigated by WH

2005/00331

T3/381a DP

35 Montem Lane, Slough Enforcement Notice for operational development

(P) Legal instructed and land charges informed 9/11/05 (L) Requisition sent 14th June 2006. (L) Draft notice to planning for approval 14th June 2006. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 16/6/06. (L) 10.07.06 - EJ instructed by SQ not to issue notice for time being – in light of petition received. SQ will advise EJ, when notice can be issued. (P) Notice served 17/1/07, effective 21/2/07 for compliance by 21/4/07 (P) Appeal lodged (P) Appeal dismissed, compliance by 07/02/08. Reminder to comply sent 23/03/09 (P) Meeting being sought to discuss matters.

2008/00222 BL

CF T/T3/671

10 Yew Tree Road, Slough. Unauthorised change of use to a house in multiple occupation and the unauthorised erection of a single storey rear extension.

(L) Instructions received 7 November 2008 (P) Enforcement Notice served 18th November 2008, Compliance 16th March 2009. (P) Appeal received. (P) Prosecution papers being prepared (P) Info received that the charge holder is moving for repossession. (P) Enquiries in progress – contact with mortgage company (P) The Mortgage Company now has taken the house. They will carry out surveys etc. in order to see which direction to take. Review in mid April.

Page 7

2

2008/00328

CF T/T3/671

3a Church Street, Slough. Unauthorised change of use to a private hire – mini cab booking office and the installation of a radio aerial.

(L) Instructions received 7th November 2008 (P) Enforcement Notice served 17th November 2008, Compliance 15th March 2009. (P) Appeal received. (P) Appeal allowed –matter closed

2008/00347 BL

CF 64 Barnfield, Slough. Mixed use of residential and place of worship

(P) Legal instructed 26 February 2009. (P) Notice served 30/03/09. Effective 27/04/09. Compliance 27/05/09. (P) Appeal received (P) Appeal Inspector visit completed. Awaits (P) Appeal Dismissed. Notice reactivated Compliance by 28 November 2009 (P) Compliance time extended by Mr. McMillen to 28 February 2010

2008/00264 BL

CF/T3/693

26 Wexham Road Unauthorised sub-division office and residential

(P) Legal instructed 11 June 2009. (L) Instructions received 12 June 2009 (P) Enforcement Notice served 1st July, compliance due by 29 January 2010. (P) Notice withdrawn. Further action being considered. (P) instructions being prepared for legal

2008/00332/ENF PR

CF/ T3/676

42 Wexham Road Unauthorised rear extension and lean-to roof

(L) Instructions received 19 November 2008 (P) Notice served 5 December 2008. Compliance 2 April 2009.

2008/00332/ENF WH

CF/ 673 47 Elliman Avenue Breach of Condition Notice

(L) Instructions received November 2008 (P) Notice served 5 December 2008. Compliance due 5 January 2009 (P) Papers being prepared for legal (P) Papers for litigation sent to legal 27 October 2009. (P) Prosecution files being prepared 24/02/10 (P) Instructions sent to legal 01-03-10

2009/00204/ENF PR

31-33, The Frithe, Slough, SL2 5SY

(P) Temporary Stop Notice served on 16th October in relation to the breach for the unauthorised change of use of residential properties to a mixed use of residential and the storage of vehicles awaiting repair / onward sale. (P) No further action

Page 7

3

2009/00148 WH

15 Chestnut Avenue Change of use of rear garden for storage of motor vehicles

(P) PCN served 26/10/09 (P) PCN returned and answered on 20/11/09 (L) Instructions to legal (CF) to draft 215 Notice 15/12/09 (P) 215 Notice served 22/12/09 (L) Appeal from owners commence (L) 215 Appeal hearing 5th March 2010 (L) Appeal ongoing.

2006/00296/ENF EW

T3/712 Land at Tanhouse Farm, Mill Street, Colnbrook, Berkshire (South off the Colne River)

(P) Notice served 30th November 2009 in respect of the unauthorised change of use from land for agricultural use to the mixed uses of agricultural land and the storage of miscellaneous items not associated with an agricultural use. (P) Appeal lodged 23rd December to be dealt using the inquiry procedure. Date and venue to be confirmed. (P) Statement of Case submitted confirmed date 24th June 2010

2009/00308/ENF PR

71 Long Readings Lane, Unauthorised change of use of outbuilding to provide primary accommodation

(P) Instruction sent to legal for engrossment 29/10/09 (P) Notice served on 19th Jan 2010, compliance due on 16.04.10 (P) Compliance in progress

Page 7

4

P/11333/001 DM

Land to r/o 34 High Street, Colnbrook. Large storage shed.

(P) Legal instructed October 2000 (P) Enforcement Notice issued and served 16/2/01 for compliance on 16/6/01. (P) Appeal lodged and Public Inquiry held 18/9/01. Appeal dismissed. (P) Application for a Judicial Review granted, but then dismissed. Applicant ordered to pay

£488.10 costs to Treasury Solicitors. (P) Applicant refused leave to refer matter to Court of Appeal and told to comply with the notice

by 21/10/03. (P) Notice not compiled with legal instructed to prosecute 15/11/03. (L) Court hearing 11/2/04 at Maidenhead Magistrates Court. (L) (P) Case adjourned to 31/3/04 for committal proceedings for trial at Crown Court. (L) Defendant committed for trial in Reading Crown Court on 12/5/04 (P) Matter withdrawn on advice of legal. Counsel instructed to decide on new course of action. (P) Matter being addressed by legal and enforcement with a view to taking direct action. (L) Advice taken from Counsel re direct action. Advice relayed to planning for investigation as to residency of dwelling before proceeding. (P) Letter to The Owner/Occupier requesting access to the site unanswered. Legal asked to obtain warrant of entry. (P) Appeared at SMC and application for warrant refused 25/4/05 (P) Letter had delivered to owner/occupier informing him that the Council will be making a further application for a warrant at SMC on 9/5/05 (P) Owner attended court and agreed to allow Officers to inspect properties. It was felt inappropriate to apply for a warrant in these circumstances. Appointment made for 25/5/05. (P) Owner attended council offices at 09:10 hours on 25/5/05 saying that he was unwell and was

on his way to the doctors. In consequence he would not be available to receive Officers conducting the site visit. He was told that as there was an appointment it would be kept. Officer attended as agreed. No reply. Legal informed who will obtain a new date at Slough Magistrates Court to obtain a search warrant.

(P) Attended SMC 21/6/05. Papers not available (lost by Court) New date at Maidenhead Magistrates Court 13/7/05. (P) Court issued a warrant 13/7/05 to be executed within one month. (P) Search conducted 27/7/05. Part of structure appears to be used as domestic. Steven Quayle informed by email and instructions awaited. (L) Report for Committee to be presented in Jan re direct action – Committee resolution req. (P) Site visit conducted with SQ on 3/10/06 (P) SQ has verbally indicated that as there is no planning herm he is not enthusiastic in continuing a prosecution. (P) Default action to be carried out before the end of March.

Page 7

5

2008/00361/ENF PR

T3/703 34 High Street, Colnbrook, Slough

(P) Instruction sent to legal for engrossment 215 notice 12/10/09 (P) Notice served on 17th Dec 2009, compliance due on 14.01.10. (p) Default action completed 22-24/3/2010 ☺

2006/00418 NFC

SH T3/604

20 Wexham Road, Slough Unauthorised erection of a outbuilding

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges informed – 11/10/06 (P) Legal requested further instructions – resent – 22/11/06 (P) Legal requested further set of instructions sent 24/01/07 (L) Drafts sent to planning 15/02/07 (P) Draft corrected and returned 19/2/07. (P) Notice served 26/3/7, effective 30/4/7 for compliance by 30/7/7 (P) Appeal dismissed 01/04/08 (L) Prosecution file being drafted in liaison with PSH 20/02/10

2009/00280/ENF WH

11 Birch Grove, Slough Unauthorised front extension

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges Informed 16/02/10. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 18/02/10.

2009/00320/ENF WH

83 Ledgers Road, Slough Unauthorised front canopy extension

(P) Legal Instructed and land charges Informed 23/02/10. (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 24/02/10.

PR TE/708 66 Ledgers Road Unauthorised rear outbuilding – use as separate dwelling

(P) Instruction sent to legal for engrossment 29/10/09 (P) Notice served on 19th Jan 2010, compliance due on 16.04.10. (P) Compliance in progress; tenants been given their 2 months notice

Page 7

6

GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS

PLANNING - Enforcement

LEGAL General

BL = Bob Lee SQ = Steven Quayle HMO = House in Multiple Occupation WH = William Holloway CF = Ciara Feeney PA = Planning Application PR = Phillip Rowe DP = Dawn Pelle BOC = Breach of Condition EW = Edward Wilson SH = Sadia Hussain 215 = Section 215 Notice EN = Enforcement Notice TSN = Temporary Stop Notice SN = Stop Notice PP = Planning Permission

2009/00287/ENF PR

21 Belfast Avenue Non compliance with approved plans

(P) Instructions sent legal to engross EN 24/02/2010 (P) Notice served on 9th Mar 2010, compliance due on 7.06.10.

2009/00049 PR

4 Chester Road Unauthorised Rear extension

(P) Planning Enforcement Notice served 12 October 2009 . Compliance 21 February 2010. (P) Enforcement Appeal lodged – to be dealt with by Public Inquiry on 5 May 2010 due to ground D appeal (alleging the extension has been there over 4 years).

2009/00306/ENF PR

6 Wellesley Road - unauthorised rear extension and outbuilding and boundary wall

(P) Instructions sent legal to engross EN 06/03/2010

Page 7

7

Page 7

8

Th

is p

age

is in

tentio

nally

left b

lank

LITIGATION, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE, ADVERTISING BREACHES ONGOING TO DATE (29.03.10)

Planning

Reference

and

Officer

Legal

Reference

and

Officer

Address

And

Activity

Details of actions

Planning prefaced (P)

Legal prefaced (L)

2008/00332 WH

CF T3/677

35 Hillersdon Slough Change of use to flats

(P) Enforcement Notice served 9th December 2008. (P) Compliance 6th April 2009. (P) New application refused 27th April 2009. (P) Prosecution papers to legal 22 Oct 2009 (L) Papers held by legal (CF) 15 December 2009 (L) 1st Hearing Maidenhead Mags 5th Feb 2010 (L) 2nd hearing at Maidenhead 19/02/10 and adjourned to 19/03/10 (P) Matter referred to Crown Court on application by prosecution to determine sentencing in conjunction with Proceeds of Crime application. Date pending.

2009/00206 BL

OK 1 Boston Grove Vehicle repairs

(P) Instructions sent to Legal This day 12 October 2009. (L) Hearing 26th February. Failed to attend. Warrant issued.

2007/00092 BL

CF 6 Salt Hill Drive 2nd Storey rear ext. Side Dormer . Front canopy.

(P) Instructions sent to legal and land charges 04/06/08. (P) Breach of Condition Notice Served 22 July 2008. (P) Compliance due 24 January 2009. (P) Prosecution papers sent to Legal 26 February 2009. (P) Trial set for 23 September 2009 (P) Found Guilty. 1st Party . £450 Fine. £1000 Costs. 2nd party Con Dis 1 year £500 Costs. New date compliance set post Conviction. (P) Papers sent to legal for new Enforcement Notice

Page 7

9

2008/00122/ENF BL

CF T3/661

26 Maplin Park (P) Prosecution papers sent to legal (P) 1st hearing Maidenhead Mags Court 2 October 2009. (P) next hearing 23 October 2009 Maidenhead Mags court (P) The Magistrates imposed both Mr and Mrs Daheley with a £750 fine, together with £350 each towards SBC's costs and a victim surcharge of £15 each. A planning application awaits determination before further action can be taken. (p) Planning application refused and appeal submitted. Awaits result of appeal.

2009/00081 BL

AOk Manor Lodge, 2a Mildenhall Road .Unauthorised advertisements.

(P) Prosecution papers sent to Legal 28 May 2009. (P) First hearing 4 September 2009 at Maidenhead Magistrates (P) Adjourned to 9 October 2009 (L) Prosecution withdrawn

2007/00391 BL

AO 65 Northern Road 2nd Storey side extension

(P) Planning enforcement notice served 15 may 2008. (P) Compliance due 16 September 2008. (P) Appeal Received. (P) Appeal dismissed, compliance due 27 May 2009. (P) Prosecution papers being prepared. (p) Legal to issue proceedings (P) 1st Hearing 16 October 2009 Maidenhead Mags Court.

Page 8

0

2006/00382 BL

JRB T3/619

Land Adj. 100 Waterbeach Road Unauthorised erection of Building containing residential Flats.

(P) Legal instructed and Land Charges Informed 27/3/07. (P) JB has forwarded a memo seeking further information dated 3/5/07. (P) Reply to forgoing sent 9/5/07 (P) Legal requested 12 copies of plan in memo dated 15/5/07 (P) Plans sent to legal as requested. (P) Enforcement Notice served 13/6/07, effective 16/7/07 compliance by 16/10/07. (P) Appeal lodged. (P) App/J0350/c/07/2050463. The Planning Inspectorate refuse the appeal. Not valid by Time. Prosecution to be commenced. (P) No compliance. Prosecution papers being prepared. (P) Prosecution Case File to, Tania Fletcher, Wednesday 14 November 2007 (L) Prosecution considered and will continue. TEF to arrange filing of documents to be served. (L) Proceedings filed 29.11.07. first call 18.01.08. TEF awaiting documents to be returned then to prepare for Planning to serve (L) docs ready to serve TEF to give to planning (L) docs served (L) first call 18.01.08. defendant did not appear. Adjourned to 15.02.08. warrant to follow if non attendance. (L) Adjourned until 13 June 2008. (L) Pleaded guilty, £4.500 fine, £450 costs. (L) The owners agent has been made aware that we are monitoring the situation. Meeting arranged for 15 September 2008 to discuss regularisation application to be submitted. Prosecution being considered in view of length of time being taken to submit application. (L) Non-compliance and failure to submit and application. Paper sent to legal for further prosecution. (P) PP granted, considering expediency for further enforcement action.

Page 8

1

2005/00260 NFC

L16/025 011219

Rhea's Indian Cuisine, 295-297, High Street, Slough Shutters

(P) Legal Instructed and Land Charges informed. 30/8/05 (L) acknowledgement of instructions sent out on 22/09 (L) Requisitions sent out to 8 parties on 5/10/05 (L) SH to draft Enforcement Notice (L) Enforcement notice served 6/1/06, effective 6/2/06 for compliance 6/4/06, Land Charges informed (P) Site visit required to establish if compliance has been achieved. (P) Appeal lodged. (P) Appeal dismissed. New date for compliance 18/12/06. (P) No compliance moved to Part 11. (P) Prosecution papers being prepared. (P) Prosecution papers signed by David Scourfield 18/5/07 and forwarded to legal the same day. (P) Legal Acknowledged instructions 7/8/07. (L) as above (L) File located. TEF has requested NC carry out a site visit. (L) NC doing a pre-action letter (P) NC meeting with new occupier on 17.01.08 (P) Planning in discussions about the way forward. No legal action required at this stage. (L) Legal action being considered (L) Letter warning of prosecution sent and resolution expected within 28 days or proceedings to be issued forthwith. (P) Instructions being prepared for prosecution (L) Prosecution file forwarded to Legal 26 October 2009 (L) 1st hearing at Maidenhead Mags 29th January 2010 (L) Case set for trial 28/04/10

Page 8

2

2006/00001 BL

2 Upton Court Road S215 Action. Storage/parking motor vehicles.

(P) Legal instructed and Land Charges informed 27/02/06 (P) Legal acknowledged instructions 8/3/06. (L) Requisitions sent 10.3.06 File passed to JRB (P) Draft notice agreed and returned to legal w/e 14/7/06 (P) Sec 215 Notices served 27 July 2006. Compliance date. 3 September 2006. (P) No compliance. Prosecution papers prepared and moved to Part 11 (P) KKC has requested a meeting with BL. Yet to be arranged. (P) Attended court on 6 September 2007. Plea of guilty. Fined £720 with £1500 costs. Will monitor the property for post conviction compliance. (L) meeting TEF and NC – NC to monitor compliance (L) Bob Lee to provide up to date statement (L) statement provided, we are waiting on a land registry search and a record of conviction then we will be able to file proceedings for continued non compliance. (L) Papers being prepared for prosecution for non compliance. (L) Adjourned for representations. Next Court date 11th July 2008 (L) Pleaded not guilty, next Court date 5 November 2008. (L) Convicted guilty at Court. Fined £2500.00 and ordered to pay costs of £584.61 (L) Considering further prosecution (L) Prosecution papers being prepared , along with a separate 215 Notice. (L) Separate 215 Notice served on land, dated 27th October 2009, further evidence gathered (P) Direct Action to be considered at premises due to previous non compliance. (P) Direct Action committee report completed and will be in 17th Feb 2010 Committee report for approval of works (P) Deadline for Committee missed. Placed for Committee on 17/03/10

ENF/2005/00396 BL

T3/651 CF

271 Langley Road Slough Failure to Comply with an Enforcement Notice

(L) (L) In Court 1st August 2008 for plea, proof in absence or warrant of arrest. (L) Matter proved in absence and warrant of arrest issued. (L) Warrant for arrest still outstanding (P) Defendant Surrendered. Sentencing hearing 8 October 2009 Maidenhead Mags Court. (L) Trial fixed for 13th January 2010 (L) Matter has been reopened by Court and listed for Trial on 31.3.10. NFC to appear as witness.

Page 8

3

BL AO Skyways Hotel, London Road, Slough Unauthorised Adverts

(P) Papers sent to legal on 10/12/2009

BL CF L7/021

My Favourite Chicken 3-5 Meadfield , Slough

(P) Papers sent to legal on 19th January 2010 (L) First hearing 26th March 2010 at Maidenhead (L) Adjourned for Defence to seek representation. Next date 9/4/10

2006/00363/ENF WH

AO The Flags PH, 43 Church Street, Slough

(P) Papers sent to legal on 4th January 2010

GLOSSARY OF ABREVIATIONS

PLANNING - Enforcement

LEGAL General

BL = Bob Lee SQ = Steven Quayle HMO = House in Multiple Occupation WH = William Holloway CF = Ciara Feeney PA = Planning Application PR = Phillip Rowe DP = Dawn Pelle BOC = Breach of Condition EW = Edward Wilson SH = Sadia Hussain 215 = Section 215 Notice AO = Ann Osbourne EN = Enforcement Notice AOk = Agatha Okafor TSN = Temporary Stop Notice OK= Omar Khan SN = Stop Notice PP = Planning Permission POCA = Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002

Page 8

4

AGENDA ITEM 11

Page 85

By virtue of paragraph(s) 2, 5, 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A

of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 86
