14 flats and rear extension at 29-35 High Street, Shepperton

What was proposed

The scheme would add a storey and rear extension, create 14 homes, reconfigure six existing units, alter a ground-floor unit and revise the car park.

“Application No. 25/00866/FUL Site Address 29-35 High Street, Shepperton, TW17 9AB Applicant Oz Capital and Property Limited Proposal The erection of an additional storey and rear extension to create 14 total residential units (including the re-configuration of 6 existing units) and internal alterations to Unit C on the ground floor.”

“The application proposes the erection of an additional storey and a rear extension on top of the existing ground floor that would create 14 total residential units and would include the re-configuration of the six existing units (resulting in an eight-unit increase).”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a prominent corner building with ground-floor commercial space, homes above and a rear car park accessed from Manor Farm Avenue.

“The application site is occupied by a three-storey building that contains commercial space on the ground floor and 6 residential units on the floors above. The site is situated on a prominent corner plot location at the junction of Shepperton High Street and Manor Farm Avenue.”

“The property contains a car park at the rear, which serves the existing flats and commercial units that is accessed from Manor Farm Avenue to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions covered four shops, six maisonettes and six lock-up garages, followed by a shopfront installation.

“Relevant Planning History 2.1 The site has the following planning history:”

“SUN/FUL/6181D Erection of 4 shops, 6 maisonettes and 6 lock-up garages. Granted 10.05.1963 SUN/FUL/6181/G1 Installation of shopfront. Granted 10.07.1964”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, saying the design, housing contribution, future living conditions, parking and neighbouring amenity were acceptable overall.

“The application also proposes internal alterations to Unit C on the ground floor. There would be a total of 14 car parking spaces provided, 11 for the residential units and 1 parking space allocated to each of the commercial uses on the ground floor situated at the rear of the site. This is considered to be acceptable in a town centre location that is some 230 metres from Shepperton Railway Station.”

“The proposal is considered to provide a good standard of amenity for future occupants and will have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker opposed the scheme, an agent supported it, and Councillor Attewell spoke against it as ward councillor.

What members debated

Members discussed unreliable transport, the building’s overbearing appearance, parking, design, green space, fire safety, disabled access and public amenity space.

“During the debate the following key issues were raised:”

“The transport infrastructure is not reliable enough to see residents choose this over their cars 2. The proposed building is overbearing 3. Lack of sufficient parking spaces at the rear of the property 4. Proposed development does not blend in with surrounding buildings and has no green areas 5. The proposed building is more attractive than the one currently in situ 6. Issues surrounding fire safety within the proposed building 7.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The approval motion fell after a recorded vote, with 13 councillors against, one in favour and no abstentions.

“Councillor Saliagopoulos requested a recorded vote…”

“For Councillor Burrell – 1 vote Abstain 0 votes Against Councillors Bateson, Beatty, Beecher, Bhadye, Buck, Chandler, Geraci, Lee, Mooney, Nichols, Rutherford, Saliagopoulos, Gibson – 13 votes…”

Minutes

The final decision

The committee refused the application because it considered the scheme overdevelopment that would harm neighbouring properties, the street scene, density, amenity space and parking.

“The application represents overdevelopment of the site. It is considered to be overbearing in nature, will overlook neighbouring properties, not positively contribute to the street scene, will unacceptably increase the density of the area, contains a lack of amenity space and there is a lack of parking, under Policies EN1, CC3 and HO5 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009, NPPF, the Council’s SPD on Residential Extensions and New Residential Developments 2011 and the…”

Minutes