Office extension and extra floor at Franklin House, Shepperton

Earlier planning history

The site’s recorded planning history includes permission for a two-storey estate office granted in January 1960.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 1.1 The site has the following planning history:”

“SUN/FUL/1988B Erection of two storey estate office. Granted 27.01.1960”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in relation to character, residential amenity, parking, highways and flooding, and recommended approval subject to conditions.

“Given the siting and scale of the works, the scheme is also considered to have an acceptable impact upon residential amenity. The application proposes two parking spaces at the front of the site, which would be in accordance with the Council’s maximum parking standards. Given the sites location in the centre of Shepperton, the proximity to Shepperton Railway Station, and nearby bus stops, this is considered to be acceptable.”

“The proposal is also considered to have an acceptable impact on flooding , subject to the conditions set out in the Environment Agency’s Standing advice.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Highway Authority recommended conditions, while two neighbour letters objected to character, parking, possible future housing and effects on existing occupiers.

“Consultee Comment County Highway Authority Recommends Conditions and Informatives. Environment Agency Consultation not required. Network Rail Recommends informatives.”

“- The plans show proposed office space but permission has been granted for a change of use (Officer Note: There is no planning permission for a change of use of the building). - The proposal will be out of character. - The proposed parking is insufficient. - It is unclear why bathrooms and shower rooms are required. - The property could be converted to dwellings at a later stage (Officer Note: the application must be determined on its own merits).”

Officer report

Who spoke against

A residents’ representative and the ward councillor spoke against, raising concerns about parking, cycle spaces, intensification and nearby proposals.

The committee debate

Members considered whether the proposal represented excessive intensification and whether its size and scale harmed the street scene and area’s character.

“Excessive intensification on a contained plot in accordance with NPPF and EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD adopted in 2009”

“The development does not positively contribute to the street scene and the character of the area due to the size and scale contrary to Policy EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009 and the NPPF 2024.”

Minutes