Planning Applications – SCAN's Chairman's Comments
For more information regarding these planning applications please visit the planning pages of Spelthorne Council's web site
Also Statutory guidance - Access to and use of buildings: Approved Document M
Other Planning Application Links
20/00123/OUT Bugle Nurseries, Upper Halliford Road, Shepperton, TW17 8SN
Outline planning application with all matters reserved other than 'Access' for the retention of existing dwelling and demolition of all other existing buildings and structures and the redevelopment of the site for up to 31 dwellings along with the provision of public open space and other associated works for landscaping, parking areas, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes.
Representation :The dwellings created by this proposal should have access and facilities suitable for disabled people, in accordance with requirement M4(3) of Part M of the Building Regulations (i.e. category 3 : Wheelchair user dwellings).
OUTCOME – Refused 19/11/2020 SCAN comments noted but not discussed in the officers’ report
20/00237/FUL Osmanstead, Condor Road, Laleham, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1UG
Erection of six detached dwellings, 2 fronting Thames Side and 4 fronting Condor Road, with associated access, parking areas and amenity following demolition of existing house and outbuildings.
Representation: The planning application is listed as 6 detached houses whereas it should refer to 2 detached and 2 pairs of semi-detached. There is a significant fall to the western part of the site, where plots 1 and 2 are proposed. From the road there is more than a 2m rise to the back gardens. Whilst this appears in the visualisations the elevations disregard this significant impact on access, particularly for disabled people. The drawings are marked as 'draft' so it is suggested that the discrepancy on levels be corrected on the future versions. Suitable means of access for disabled people by ramps needs to be considered, whilst improved level access to plot 2 could be achieved off Condor Road.
OUTCOME: open for comments with description unchanged (28/12/2020)
20/00243/FUL 121 High Street, Shepperton, TW17 9BL
Change of Use from A3 Restaurant/Cafe to C3 Dwelling Houses comprising 3 no. 1 bedroom flats. Representation: The description of the proposal is incorrect as the drawings show each dwelling to have two bedrooms, The drawings refer to the dwellings as 'flats', which is clearly incorrect. The drawings do not appear to be co-ordinated with plans and elevations being at variance. Step free access has not been provided to each dwelling and access to 'flat one' (sic) is compromised by the car parking space.
OUTCOME: Approved with conditions (09/11/2020) but without revised description. SCAN comments considered ‘a building regulation matter’
20/00344/FUL Thameside House, South Street, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4PR
Demolition of existing office block and erection of 140 residential units in two buildings, with flexible commercial and retail space, associated landscaping, parking and ancillary facilities.
Objection: 4 units are claimed to be suitable for wheelchair users and all are in Block A: 2 at second floor level and two at 8th floor level.
There are no wheelchair units in Block B. 4 units out of 140 is an unreasonably low ratio and as all 4 are 2-bedroom flats this fails to provide variety or choice. In any event how are these units to be reserved for wheelchair users? Furthermore the design and access statement ambiguously states that these units “incorporate features of M4(3) Category 3: Wheelchair dwellings to provide units that can be easily adaptable for wheelchair users“. This means they are in fact category 2 (M4(2)).
Whilst the flats generally have reasonable step free access by virtue of lifts, the flats and duplex units within the Thames Street block of Plot A have excessive travel distance from a lift.
Furthermore the configuration of the duplex units, with the kitchen on the upper floor, means those units at best fall within category 1 (M4(1)) as they cannot be adapted for wheelchair users. Visitors will have to negotiate a flight of stairs just to reach bedroom accommodation, within another flight to the remaining area. This will preclude wheelchair users and most ambulant disabled people
Turning to car parking, the 7 wheelchair parking spaces provided for residents are located in Westbrook Road which is outside the secure part of the development and therefore appear to be within the public domain. There appears to be nothing to prevent the public using these places. In any event these places are some distance (stated as 50m-90m) from the entrance of Block A and no consideration is made of the distance to Plot B.
Even on reaching the entrance residents or visitor will still have some distance to travel, particularly if they are going to the Thames Street flat/duplex block.
It is noted that Plot C provides car parking and the distance from the dwellings is excessive. There is no drop off facility for wheelchair users/visitors adjacent to the entrance lobby.
I also object to the loss of the significant amount of general parking as this will disadvantage many visitors to Staines at busy times.
The access and design statement refers to this car park as being under-utilised, which is misleading The offices within the ground floor of Plot A have a change in level with several steps.
It is not clear whether a lift is being provided between these levels
Of the 3 disabled bays provided for Plot A, the right-hand bay will potentially block access to the plant room.
OUTCOME: Open for comments(30/12/20) – more information provided by applicant
20/00727/OUT Gradus, Drake Avenue, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 2AW Demolition of the existing 2 storey building and replacement with 2.5 storey building comprising of 4 flats and 2 under-croft car spaces. Car access to be from approved Drake House scheme ref' 19/0170/FUL
Representation : A Design and Access Statement has not been provided so the intention with regards to compliance with Part M of the Building Regulations 2010 cannot be determined. It appears that a lift may be intended and it is requested that, if the application is approved, a condition be imposed that the development be built in accordance with Regulation M4(2).
OUTCOME : Withdrawn
20/00728/SCC St Pauls Catholic College , Manor Lane, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6JE Surrey County Council Consultation for the erection of a new standalone 4-court sports hall with associated changing and storage facilities; Single storey extensions to existing buildings to facilitate an additional 1 form entry. Extensions are proposed to the Science Block: 3no. extensions to create new classrooms and a staff office (displaced from South Building); and provide an additional general art room and link corridor in the South Building (to facilitate reorganisation of the existing space).
20 cycle parking spaces, associated external works and landscaping (SCC Ref 2020/0081)
Objection: The lack of lifts results in 19 classrooms being inaccessible for wheelchair users. Given the significant extent of works compliance with the Equalities Act 2010 should be achieved to the benefit of both disabled pupils and staff.
The drawings are insufficiently clear to demonstrate whether accessible toilet provision is being made within each building, with step free access to all buildings. Access between buildings suitable for wheelchair users has not been demonstrated.
OUTCOME: No objection raised by Spelthorne Council. SCAN objection sent to Surrey County Council. Approved by SCC and although SCAN comments were passed on to the applicant (SCC) by the planning officer (SCC) the requirements of the Equality Act were not considered to be relevant . E-mail sent to SCC advising on the implications of this view.
20/00802/FUL Car Park, Tesco Supermarket, Town Lane, Stanwell, TW15 3AA
Redevelopment of surplus hospital car park for 127 residential units comprising 122 flats and 5 terraced houses, in buildings ranging from 2 to 5 storeys in height, with associated access, parking, services, facilities and amenity space
Representation: The Design and Access Statement states that the development has been designed to meet the aims of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995/2005 but that Act has been repealed. The latter document was withdrawn on 9th October 2014. The correct reference is The Equality Act 2010 and the D & A Statement should be reviewed. Reference is made to Lifetime Homes but it is evident that the design has not fully considered this, with flats having baths and some layouts having inappropriate door configurations.
OUTCOME: Memorandum of Understanding issued by SBC (21/12/2020) The planning officer considered SCAN comments as a matter to be dealt with in some detail at the Building Regulations stage!!
20/00931/FUL 12 Thames Meadow, Shepperton, TW17 8LT
Replacement new building with 2 floors of accommodation
Objection: Whilst this new house has been designed with three flights of stairs providing access to the ground floor to notionally achieve the minimum standard for compliance with Building Regulation requirement M4(1) - visitable dwellings, none of those flights meets the required standard. One flight is too narrow whilst the others do not have handrails.
In any event it would not be unreasonable to consider the installation of an external short rise lift to ensure the house would be accessible and adaptable in accordance with requirement M4(2).
OUTCOME: Refused 15/12/20. SCAN comments acknowledged and discussed but had it been intended to grant permission a condition would have been required for compliance with ‘Part M’ of the Building Regulations. This would have not satisfied the objection as it would have defaulted to the category 1 –visitable, but a step in the right direction !
20/00975/FUL 280-284 Staines Road East, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 5AX
Erection of a 50-bed care home, alongside associated facilities, parking and landscaping, following the demolition of 3 existing dwellings and outbuildings.
Representation: Although the design and access statement indicates that residents are unlikely to have their own vehicles, with a minibus being available, I suggest that it would be appropriate to provide some wheelchair parking spaces by the entrance to allow drop off/pick up. Other aspects of accessible design can be resolved during the Building Regulation approval process.
OUTCOME: Open for comments (30/12/20)
20/00939/FUL Ashford Hospital , London Road, Ashford, TW15 3AA
Erection of a single storey CT Scanner unit.
Representation: Step-free access is not shown although it is difficult to anticipate how the unit would be accessible to patients, particularly wheelchair users. A ramp will be needed.
OUTCOME: Approved 17/11/2020 – Officer SCAN noted comments but stated that a ramp was shown leading up to the entrance doors on ‘site photos’, which are not on file
20/01112/FUL Phase 1C Charter Square, High Street, Staines-Upon-Thames, TW18 4BY,
Redevelopment of the site to provide 66 new residential units (Use Class C3) with flexible commercial, business and service floorspace (Use Class E) and drinking establishment floorspace (Sui Generis) at ground floor, rooftop amenity space; landscaping and enhancements to the central public square, associated highway works, and other ancillary and enabling works.
Objection :The manner in which the design and access is present with multiple random documents, often a single page, makes it extremely difficult for the application to be properly assessed. However it is evident from the Planning Statement that the proposal is for a 'car free' development.
Reference is made to parking within Phase 1A for disabled people but that cannot be considered as the distance is far too great and the route too complicated to be suitable. In any event the parking spaces suggested will have been allocated for the earlier phases of the development.
It is noted that 7 of the 66 units are intended to be 'wheelchair user dwellings' yet there is insufficient parking (or none) to facilitate this. Disabled access to the remaining 59 units could not be established due to the haphazard presentation of the application.
Without restriction on the sale or rental of the 'wheelchair user dwellings' only to such disabled people the proposal is only a gesture. In any event the development does not comply with the Equality Act 2010 due to the lack of suitable parking for disabled people, particularly wheelchair users.
OUTCOME Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01121/FUL Northlands Estate - 9 Blocks, Vickers Court, Sunderland Court & Shackleton Court, Whitley Close; Fleetwood Court & Vanguard Court, Douglas Road; Wessex Court & Tudor Court, De Havilland Way; Bristol Court & Clifton Court, Bristol Close, Stanwell
Installation of gates/side panels to the communal entrances of each blocks
Objection There is insufficient information published on this application to determine what is proposed and the plans provided do not accurately represent the site. The red line is incorrect. As such the planning application appears incomplete and invalid.
I would be very concerned that 'gates/side panels' would impede access for disabled people and not satisfy the Equality Act 2010
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020). More information on gates provided but operation of ‘maglocks’ questioned by a resident.
20/01199/FUL The Old Telephone Exchange, Masonic Hall And Adjoining Land, Elmsleigh Road, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 4PN
Demolition of the former Masonic Hall and redevelopment of site to provide 206 dwellings together with car and cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and other associated works.
Representation; The applicant has indicated that 100% of the flats will comply with Part M (Building Regulations) Category 2 (M4(2)) and will therefore be 'accessible and adaptable'. In order to ensure the Building Regulations can be enforced to this standard any planning permission must include a condition to this effect.
With only 48 parking spaces in total for the 206 dwellings there is inconsistency with the objective of achieving the requirements of M4(2) for all flats. In any event with only 10 parking spaces in total for disabled people (less than 5%) it is unclear how such spaces will be guaranteed for those who require them. What drop-off arrangements are intended for disabled visitors etc.?
Access to Block A is unclear as there is no street entrance shown and the car park level appears to be 200mm above ground floor level (15.20m & 15.00m respectively).
OUTCOME Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01203/FUL 86 High Street, Shepperton, TW17 9AU
The erection of a part single storey, part two storey rear extension, with habitable accommodation in the roof space to comprise 1 x 1-bedroom unit and 2 x 2-bedroom units including the reconfiguration of the existing first floor unit, with associated amenity space
Objection There is no parking provision and limited potential for disabled people to visit the flats created by this proposal. None of the dwellings created are accessible and adaptable and as such do not satisfy the Equality Act.
The submission is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. The drawings do not contain scale bars, are not fully dimensioned and even contain a note that the accuracy is not guaranteed. The description of work makes no reference to the two-storey side extension at first and second floor levels.
OUTCOME Open for comment (30/12/2020 – description revised
20/01270/RVC Holiday Inn London, Felix Lane, Shepperton, TW17 8NP
Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) imposed upon planning permission 20/00703/FUL to allow realignment alterations to the single storey reception extension, alterations to the terrace including the installation of a glass balustrade including proposed internal alterations in the bar area. Installation of an extraction kitchen system, the construction of pergola with glass roof, a butterfly folding awning and 'jumbrella', re-location of cycle shelter and racks with other associated alterations.
Representation Despite the extensive works proposed the 'Conference Entrance' does not have a step free approach. As a consequence, the proposal fails to satisfy the Equality Act 2010. As part of the alterations now intended a ramp should be provided to this entrance.
20/01312/FUL Acacia Lodge, Rookery Road, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1BT
The demolition of existing building and development of 14 apartments including refuse storage, cycle storage, associated car parking and landscaping
Objection The building has been designed without reference to providing any facilities for disabled people. Other than a reference to 'Building for Life' I have been unable to find reference to 'wheelchair' or 'disabled' in the various reports.
The car parking has no provision for accessible spaces although there are either 19 or 21 spaces, depending upon which document is used. There are 21 parking spaces in the design and access statement although that document has a number of significant variations to the drawings. The transport statement fails to consider how wheelchair users and other people unable to walk or cycle any distance are to access the site.
Although flats 1 - 12 are accessible by lift, the flat layouts are no more than potentially 'adaptable and accessible' but this does not appear to have been specifically considered by the designers. The design does not address the Equality Act 2010 insofar as it applies to disabled people.
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01319/FUL 484 London Road, Ashford, TW15 3AD
Replacement of the existing bungalow with an apartment building comprising 9 dwellings (1 x 2 bed; 6 x 1 bed; 2 x studio) with associated parking and amenity space.
Objection The applicant has designed the flats to the minimum standard for access for disable people - category 1 visitable. However a lift has not been provided and the requirement of building regulation M4(1) is that lift access should be provided if it can reasonably be achieved.
There appears to be no reason why a lift cannot be provided. In any case the flats should be at least adaptable and accessible (Category 2 - M4(2)).
The parking layout makes no provision for larger parking spaces required by disabled people. The proposal does not satisfy the Equality Act 2010
OUTCOME: Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01320/FUL 92 Gresham Road, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 2AE
installation of replacement shop front
Representation In order to satisfy the Equality Act 2010 the entrance doors will be required to be powered and opening simultaneously (and preferably automatic). As shown each individual leaf is of insufficient width to facilitate wheelchair access.
OUTCOME: Approved 17/12/20 SCAN comments noted and discussed
20/01323/FUL 2 Explorer Avenue, Stanwell, Staines-upon-Thames, TW19 7SS
Erection of a two-storey side extension to provide an end of terrace two-bedroom dwelling following demolition of existing garage. (Renewal of planning application 16/01376/FUL).
Representation The house is designed without a ground floor toilet and as such does not meet even the minimum standard for compliance with Part M of the building regulations. The house does not satisfy the Equality Act 2010
OUTCOME: Approved 22/12/2020 but representation not recorded in officer’s report
20/01367/FUL Dart House, Thames Street, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 6AG
Demolition of most of the existing building, with the retention of much of the front elevation and all the west elevation; reconstruct building behind retained facades with extensions to side and rear to provide a total of 6 residential units (Class C3) with a ground floor unit (Class E), and 7 car parking spaces.
Objection The design of the development appears to disregard access for disabled people and makes no reference to the Equality Act. The overall presentation of the submission, with duplication of drawings and vague descriptions, makes full evaluation difficult. However there appears to be no parking provision for disabled people and even if there were, the lack of a lift makes access to the units impossible for wheelchair users. None of the units created are therefore accessible and adaptable dwellings. The design fails to consider and satisfy the Equality Act 2010
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01438/OUT 5 Marlborough Road, Ashford, TW15 3PZ
Outline Planning Permission with appearance and landscaping reserved for the erection of a 3-storey block comprising 4 flats with associated parking and amenity space, following demolition of the existing dwelling.
Representation: There is no indication that the flats have been designed to comply with the Equality Act 2010 with level access. The omission of a lift means the upper maisonettes are not adaptable. The proposed layout provides inadequate parking for wheelchair users and severely restricted access to the rear.
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01483/FUL 487 - 491 Staines Road West, Ashford, TW15 2AB
Erection of 14 no. apartments comprising 7 no. one bed units and 7 no. two bed units with associated car parking, landscaping and amenity space. following demolition of existing bungalows and outbuildings .
Objection: The design and access statement misleadingly claims the flats to comply with Building Regulations M4(2) (Category 2 - accessible and adaptable dwellings) yet a lift has not been provided.
There are various other unsatisfactory aspects of the design in relation to M4(2) (including the main entrance door arrangement, room layouts etc.) which could be resolved at the Building Regulation stage. However, unless the planning permission includes a condition for compliance with M4(2) this cannot be enforced.
Granting planning permission for the block as designed will result in yet more dwellings inaccessible to wheelchair users. This is contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and contravenes Council policies in that regard.
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020)
20/01520/FUL 4 Chalmers Road East, Ashford, TW15 1DX
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a 2-storey building with habitable space in the loft, comprising of 1 x Studio unit, 1 x 1 Bed unit and 2 x 2 bed units, with associated parking and amenity space.
Objection: The building has been designed without consideration of access and facilities for disabled people despite the planning statement making reference to 'inclusive and accessible' places in the NPPF.
The design excludes wheelchair users from even visiting the 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
OUTCOME : Open for comments (30/12/2020)