Planning ApplicationsAdult Social Care Bulletins
Disability Rights UK - News in Brief
Comments on Planning Application by SCAN's Chairman
Archived 2020-2021 Planning Comments
Government Proposal - Pavement Licensing updated July 2020
RNIB - Working with local authorities to keep pavement dining accessible

20/01579/FUL: 5 Marlborough Road, Ashford, TW15 3PZ
The erection of a 3 storey building comprising 4 self-contained flats (comprising 2 x 1 bedroom 2 x 2 bedroom units) with associated parking and amenity space, following the demolition of the existing dwelling.
Case Officer: Matthew Churchill

Objection: There are two versions of the main drawing (rev01 and rev02) on file and I have been unable to establish how they differ.

The design of this block of flats does not satisfy even the minimum 'visitable' standard of Part M of the Building Regulations. No disabled parking provision is made and access to the main entrance to all flats will be potentially obstructed by a parked car due to the minimal space provided between the entrance and the parking bay. The internal layouts have not considered the needs of disabled people with flats 3 and 4 not even having the minimum toilet facility at entrance level. The location of bins to the rear will be inconvenient for disabled people.

The block should be designed to at least the 'accessible and adaptable' standard (M4(2)) of the building regulations, with a condition on any planning permission to that effect.

Outcome : Refused objections noted but not attributed,

21/00092/FUL 19 - 21 High Street, Shepperton, TW17 9AJ
Installation of automated prescription collection machine and solid panel surround to rear elevation

Case Officer: Matthew Clapham

Representation: As the equipment is to be installed to the rear of the premises access for disabled people, particularly wheelchair users, is not shown. The site plan suggests a section of footpath exists. How is access achieved? Having watched the demonstration video it appears that the dispatch process is begun by pressing a point on the screen at shoulder level of a person who is standing. This appears to be out of reach of a wheelchair user.

Outcome : Approved with conditions. SCAN comments passed to applicant

21/00134/FUL 115 Feltham Hill Road, & Land At The Rear Of 113-127 Feltham Hill Road, Ashford, Surrey, TW15 1HE
Proposed redevelopment of site for the erection of 5 no residential units, following demolition of existing buildings

Case Officer: Kelly Walker

Representation : The 'Accessibility Statement' submitted with the application indicates that the 'proposals have considered the needs of the disabled at present and the ability to be adapted in the future'. The layouts shown with the planning application appear to have limited scope for such adaption. However, in order to ensure the dwellings will be built to an 'accessible and adaptable' standard a condition must be imposed on any planning permission granted that they will comply with Building Regulation M4(2) Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings

Outcome: Open for comments

21/00172/PDNF; Claydon Court, Kingston Road, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4NG
Prior Approval Notification for the erection of a 2 storey pitched roof extension on top of existing to provide 8 additional flats
Case Officer: Kelly Walker

Representation  In Q5 the application form states 12 additional dwellings and justifies this yet the Council has only recorded 8 flats. The drawings themselves suggest the Council may be correct. The fourth floor plan is stated as being the same layout as the third. However it appears that the fourth (top?) floor will be of mansard construction and will therefore differ. In the absence of a lift, access to the upper floors for wheelchair users and disabled people with limited mobility is denied.

Outcome: Prior approval granted. SCAN comments appear to have been disregarded

21/00334/FUL Homewaters , Green Street, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6QB
The erection of a two storey rear extension and alterations to the roof including the installation of a rear facing dormer following the demolition of the existing utility room and the sub-division and change of use of the plot to form two residential care homes (comprising 1 x 5 bedroom care home and 1 x 7 bedroom care home).
Case Officer: Matthew Churchill

Objection : Only 4 of the total of 13 bedrooms are on the ground floor and in the absence of a lift, the remaining rooms will be inaccessible to wheelchair users and the staircases, as designed, will create difficulty for some ambulant disabled people. As a significant proportion of people for whom this building is intended are likely to have a disability the omission of a lift renders this building unfit for purpose. Although stated in the design statement, it is not evident on the plans that the parking spaces provide disabled parking suitable for wheelchair users. In any event, there appears to be inadequate parking. The design does not comply with the Equality Act 2010

Outcome: open for comments

21/00336/FUL 162 Kingston Road, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1BL
Erection of new pitched roof to create a second floor studio flat, installation of external staircase, balcony, erection of front extensions and other external alterations. along with internal alterations to the ground and first floor flats (as approved under application reference 19/00984/PDR) together with amended parking and landscaping.
Case Officer: Kelly Walker

Objection : In the section 9.0 of the Design and Access Statement the applicant has stated that the flats are intended to be designed to Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings).

However this is not demonstrated in the drawings submitted for planning permission. In order to satisfy M4(2) it is required that 'it is possible to approach and gain step free access to the dwelling'. That effectively requires a lift to upper floors, which has not been provided. It is requested that any planning approval issued for this development includes a condition that the flats will comply with Building Regulation M4(2)

Outcome: open for comments

21/00372/FUL: Riverholme, The Creek, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6BY
Construction of a replacement dwelling following demolition of the existing house.

Case Officer: Matthew Churchill

Objection : With the ground floor of this dwelling being over 1.7m above ground level the staircase giving access to the main entrance does not meet the minimum standards of Part M for category 1 (Visitable). There is no reason why this dwelling should not be designed to a higher standard. The inclusion of an external short rise lift could result in a wheelchair user dwelling with satisfies requirement M4(3) of the Building Regulations. .

Outcome : open for comments

21/00382/FUL : 1 Booth Drive, Laleham, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1PR
Erection of detached dwelling along with extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling, including a single storey rear extension, rear facing dormers and parking for both dwellings.

Case Officer: Kelly Walker

Objection : The submission makes reference in the application form and the design statement to the creation of two no 2 bedroomed dwellings, which is incorrect. The design statement makes no reference to access and facilities for disabled people and steps are shown at entrances. With creation of step free access it appears possible to achieve dwellings which satisfy Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) and it is requested that a condition is attached to any planning permission requiring that standard.

Outcome : open for comments

21/00429/FUL 53 Church Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4EN
Construction of a single storey rear extension to the existing cafe including changes to the internal layout.

Case Officer: Matthew Clapham

Objection: The extent of alterations are such that it is not unreasonable to expect the cafe to be made accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users, and to comply with the Equality Act 2010 insofar as it applies to disabled people. There is a step up from the pavement into the cafe and this should be eliminated and the entrance door made of sufficient width. Assuming the wc to be intended for customers it should be accessible to wheelchair users and therefore requires redesign.

Outcome: open for comments

21/00464/FUL 4 Chalmers Road East, Ashford, TW15 1DX
The erection of a 2 storey building with habitable space in the loft, comprising of 1 x 3 bed unit & 2 x 2 Bed units with associated parking and amenity space following demolition of the existing bungalow.

Case Officer: Matthew Churchill

Objection The building has been designed without consideration of access and facilities for disabled people despite the original planning statement making reference to 'inclusive and accessible' places in the NPPF. The design excludes wheelchair users from even visiting 2 of the 3 flats as step free access has not been proposed. The overall design does not satisfy the Equality Act 2010 and this needs to be considered under the Council's associated Public Sector Equality Duty. At the very least the flats should be deigned to be Accessible and Adaptable (category 2 - Building Regulation M4(2)) and this can only be achieved if a condition is applied on a planning consent. Provision for disabled people should be included.

Outcome: open for comments