Two-storey office extension at Terminal House Station Approach Shepperton (Building B To The North-West Of The Railway Line)

What was proposed

A two-storey side extension would add 187 square metres of commercial floorspace to the existing office building, with 22 parking spaces.

“The proposal involves the erection of a two-storey side extension to the existing office building. The proposed extension will measure between 15.517m and 19.24m in length, has a depth of 6.946m, and 6.582m in height. The extension has been amended from the first submission to be set in from the side boundary to provide a buffer space between the proposed extension and the trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The building is in the Shepperton Employment Area beside the railway, with residential properties nearby and protected trees to the north-east.

“The application relates to Terminal House and specifically ‘Building B’ located on the north-western side of the railway line at Shepperton Station. Terminal House comprises two separate office buildings, the other being on the south- eastern side of the railway line, (known as ‘Building A’) with both buildings being linked by an elevated walkway across the railway line.”

“The existing building is a two-storey office block with a low profile pitched roof and backs directly onto the railway line with a frontage to Station Road. There is car parking to the front of the building and to the side. The site is located within the urban area and within the designated Shepperton Employment Area. The site is located within the Flood Zone 2 (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year event).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension supported employment, matched the existing building and was considered acceptable for amenity, parking, highways, flooding and trees.

“The site is located within a designated Employment Area, and the principle of extending the office building for commercial purposes is considered acceptable. The proposed extension matches the design and style of the existing building and provides increased floorspace within an existing Employment Area.”

“The proposed development is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of nearby dwellings and other properties. The County Highway Authority has made no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds. The level of car parking is considered acceptable. There would be no harmful impact on any adjoining trees. There are no flooding concerns.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The highway and railway authorities raised no objections, while the Tree Officer accepted amended plans subject to an arboricultural statement and 20 letters objected.

“Statutory Consultees Consultee Comment County Highway Authority No objections. Network Rail No objections.”

“Non-Statutory Consultees Consultee Comment Tree Officer No objections subject to an Arboricultural Method Statement being submitted. Environmental Health (Contamination) Requests an informative as property is located on former railway land.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objections focused on parking, inaccurate information, privacy, outlook and the electricity substation within the building.

“A total of 11 properties were notified of the application.”

“Reasons for objecting include: ➢ Inadequate Parking Provision ➢ Material Inaccuracies in planning submission ➢ Loss of privacy ➢ Loss of outlook, visual amenity ➢ Electricity substation located within the building…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and the ward councillor spoke against the extension, raising concerns about parking, traffic, privacy, future residential use and multiple applications.

What members debated

Members discussed parking, privacy, flooding, possible future residential use, operating impacts and whether further applications should come to committee.

“The development would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area that would see an increase in on-street parking 7. Further planning applications may be submitted for a change of use to residential units 8. Not adequate off-street parking provided 9. The application meets the parking provision for commercial use 10. The application site is in a flood zone 11. A number of properties would be overlooked and result in lack of privacy…”

“The building would need to be used for commercial purposes for at least two years before the developer could submit a change of use application 13. There might be an operational impact on neighbouring properties if the businesses worked hours outside of the normal 9am to 5pm eg noise, light 14. Cannot see any benefit to the local residents 15. An additional condition be added to prevent permitted development 16.”

Minutes

The votes

The motion to approve fell, with four votes for, eight against and two abstentions; refusal then passed by 12 votes to 1, with one abstention.

“For Councillors Beecher, Buck, Burrell, Gibson – 4 votes Against Councillors Bateson, Bhadye, Chandler, Geraci, Lee, Mooney, Rutherford, Saliagopoulos – 8 votes Abstain Councillors Beatty. Nichols – 2 votes…”

“The motion to approve the application FELL”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the extension was considered overbearing, harmful to neighbouring amenity and an intensification of use under Policy EN1.

“The motion to refuse the application was carried for the following reasons:”

“The extension is considered to have an overbearing impact and effect on the amenity of the neighbouring properties of 4 Old Charlton Road, 6 Old Charlton Road and 13 Station Road and would amount to an intensification of use under EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.”

Minutes