Eight flats and two shops at 42 High Street, Teddington

What was proposed

The proposal was to demolish the existing building and construct a building with eight flats, up to two commercial units and a basement.

“The scheme proposes the demolition of the existing building followed by the construction of a four-storey (including roof storey) building with additional basement level. The scheme will provide for 8 residential flats, and up to two new commercial units (Class E) at ground and basement level. The commercial floorspace would consist of approximately 168sqm at ground floor and 100sqm at basement level.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a former bank on a prominent corner within the conservation area, beside the Teddington Arms Building of Townscape Merit.

“Teddington High Street and is in Conservation Area CA37. The existing building does not constitute a Building of Townscape Merit (BTM), or a Listed Building, although the adjoining building at No. 40, the Teddington Arms Public House, is a BTM.”

“The application site is situated within Character Area 5 of the Teddington Village Planning Guidance and is designated as: • Area susceptible to ground water flood – Environment Agency • Article 4 Direction – restricting basement development • Community infrastructure levy band – low • Key Shopping Frontage - 6-42 High Street Teddington • Conservation Area – CA37 High Street Teddington • Critical Drainage Area – Environment Agency • Increased potential elevated ground…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier schemes were refused on design, height and effects on the neighbouring Building of Townscape Merit, although redevelopment was accepted in principle.

“21/0270/FUL Redevelopment of site to provide a mixed-use development comprising class E at ground floor and basement and eight residential units above – Not determined and appeal dismissed (APP/L5810/W/20/3264437). 14.04.2022 19/0511/FUL Demolition of existing building to facilitate the erection of part 4 storey part 3 storey building comprising A3 restaurant use at basement and Refused 04/06/2020 and decision upheld on appeal (APP/L5810/W/20/3264437) 14.04.2022”

“Conservation Area/BTM/Street Scenes The proposed development, by reason of its prominent corner siting, massing, height and scale on both frontages and design, would give rise to an unduly obtrusive form of development, in particular the four-storey element, which is harmful to the appearance and character of the Teddington High Street Conservation Area, adjoining street scenes and the setting of an adjacent Building of Townscape Merit.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the revised height, scale and design acceptable and found no material considerations justifying refusal, subject to an agreement and conditions.

“The height, scale and design of the building is acceptable, overcoming the previous reasons for refusal raised by the Planning Inspector.”

“This application falls to be determined in accordance with the test under section 38(6) of the 2004 Act. This proposal is in general conformity with the Development Plan and Statute as a whole, subject to mitigation secured through conditions as set out in Section 12. Officers consider that no material considerations have been identified which would indicate to the contrary to justify refusal. Planning permission should therefore be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Internal consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or agreements, while the urban design view changed to no objection after the scheme was revised.

“LBRUT Ecology Officer – no objection subject to pre-commencement conditions requiring, Ecological Enhancements, and External Lighting. Informatives to be included relating to nesting birds and bats for the demolition and construction periods particularly.”

“LBRUT Urban Design Officer – Design issues raised need to be addressed and much more supporting information on design, detailing, materials and 3d imagery need to be provided as it is not felt that the proposals are in keeping with the character of the area, or of sufficient design quality. The supporting information has also not demonstrated that the height will ensure the prominence, distinctive character and form of the locally listed 40 High Street is maintained (BTM).”

Officer report

What people said

Objections covered design, heritage, residential amenity, trees, parking, transport, construction, commercial use and basement impacts; supporters cited homes, visual improvement and high-street activity.

“Issue viii Transport • No car parking provided • Previously proposed disabled parking space has been removed • Current parking street in surrounding streets • No EV parking points provided • Noise, dust and disturbance from construction • Siting of refuse storage • Parking permits for residential and business should be excluded…”

“Letters of Support Addressed in report Design • Visual improvement from existing, unused site. Existing building already out of character with surroundings, currently unattractive. Issue iii Housing • Provision of more homes in housing crisis. • Support for provision of affordable housing. Issue i and Issue ii Use • Retention of up to 2 commercial units, vibrancy of high street, need for more variety on high street. • Provision of employment space/opportunities Issue i…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant, a consultant, the agent and the interested ward councillor spoke in support of the application.

What members discussed

Members considered the site’s history and location, noting that the vacant building did not enhance the street scene and the revised scheme related more sympathetically to its surroundings.

“The Committee discussed the application, taking into account the history and location of the site, relevant planning history and reasons for the application being considered by the Committee.”

“Members noted that the present building had been vacant for some time and was not of a vernacular that enhanced the street scene. Members discussed previous applications for the site which had been refused and agreed that the current application was of a form and scale that related more sympathetically to it’s surrounding, especially the traditional Victorian and Edwardian style dwellings on Cedar Road.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously agreed to vote in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“Members could see no reason to refuse the application and unanimously agreed to vote in accordance with the officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application subject to a Section 106 agreement securing the agreed heads of terms, conditions and informatives.

“RESOLVED that the Planning Committee APPROVED application 24/1492/FUL SUBJECT TO a Section 106 Agreement securing the Heads of Terms and the conditions and informatives set out in sections 9, 11 and 12 of the officer report. 39.”

Minutes