To
consider the Head of Planning’s Report No. PLN1548 (copy attached) which seeks authority to enter
into a S.106 Planning Agreement.
Minutes:
(1) No. 177 Ash Road, Aldershot –
The Committee received the Head
of Planning’s Report No. PLN1546 regarding the unauthorised change of use of
commercial space into residential accommodation at No. 177 Ash Road, Aldershot.
It was reported that No. 177
Ash Road was a long-established hot food takeaway (Star Kebabs) located in the
middle of the ground floor of the building. To the east side of this was a
sub-divided area of the building with lawful planning use as a separate hot food
takeaway shop on the ground floor and with storage space above. No. 177a Ash
Road was located to the west side of Star Kebabs and was also understood to be
in the same ownership and was currently in use as a hairdressers. There was
also a self-contained residential one-bedroom flat located on the first floor
of the building, No. 177c. It was highlighted that there was limited on-site
parking due to its position alongside the traffic-light junction of Ash Road,
Lower Newport Road and Lower Farnham Road.
Following complaints, an
inspection had revealed that parts of the eastern takeaway premises were being
occupied residentially, in the form of a pair of studio units on the ground
floor and with a further flat in the ancillary storage space on the first
floor. The owner had submitted a planning application in June, 2015 which had
been declared invalid due to material inaccuracies in the plans. Although the
applicant’s agent had advised that work was afoot to prepare corrected plans,
this work had not, to date, been completed and no corrected plans had been
submitted to the Council.
The Committee was informed that
the conversion of these premises would be considered acceptable in principle.
However, such conversions would only be granted planning permission, subject to
conditions to secure and retain various provisions in the interests of the
amenities of the area, the amenities of neighbours, highway safety etc. In this
case this would involve the provision, allocation and retention of parking
spaces, and provision and retention of bin storage. This had not been possible
in the configuration of this site and the unauthorised development in question
because there had been no means to impose the requisite conditions to render
the proposals acceptable in planning terms.
In addition, none of the usual
Section 106 financial contributions had been secured, most notably the
contribution for special protection area mitigation and avoidance. This was
considered fundamentally unacceptable and in conflict with the Habitats
Regulations, Government Planning Policy and Guidance and adopted Development
Plan Policy. It was also considered that there would have been a requirement
for a public open space contribution in this case. These matters were therefore
considered to be grounds for serving an Enforcement Notice.
RESOLVED: That an Enforcement Notice be served requiring the
cessation of the unauthorised material change of use of the land for
residential use with a period of six months for compliance for the following reasons:
(i)
the unauthorised development intensifies the
use of the property and is provided with inadequate and unsatisfactory on-site
parking to meet its functional needs in the vicinity of limited on-street
parking opportunities; the proposed residential development would thereby be
likely to attract indiscriminate, dangerous and obstructive parking in the
streets nearby, to the detriment of the safety and convenience of highway users
and would thereby be unacceptable, contrary to the National Planning Policy
Framework and adopted Rushmoor Core Strategy Policies
CP2 and CP16;
(ii) the
unauthorised development is provided with inadequate facilities for the on-site
storage of refuse to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area and the
living environment of occupiers contrary to adopted Rushmoor
Core Strategy Policy CP2;
(iii) the
proposal fails to make provision for an appropriate Special Protection Area
Mitigation and Avoidance contribution towards the Hawley Meadows suitable
accessible natural green space, or strategic access management measures in
order to address the impact of the proposed development upon the nature
conservation interest and objectives of the Thames Basin Heaths Special
Protection Area; the proposal is thereby contrary to the requirements of
Policies CP13 and CP15 of the Rushmoor Core Strategy
adopted in October, 2011; and
(iv)
the
proposals do not make provision for public open space in accordance with the
requirements of Policies CP11 and CP12 of the Rushmoor
Core Strategy adopted October, 2011, saved Local Plan Policies OR4 and Or4.1
and the Council’s continuing Interim Advice Note (dated August, 2000 and
updated July, 2006) “Financial Contributions towards Provision of Open Space in
Association with New Housing Development”.
(2) No. 19 Whittle Crescent, Farnborough –
The Committee received the Head
of Planning’s Report No. PLN1546 regarding the erection of a single storey rear
extension at No. 19 Whittle Crescent, Farnborough. - 34 -
It was reported that it had
come to the Council’s attention that a single storey rear extension had been
built measuring 3.7 metres from the original rear wall of the home. The
extension would have required planning permission as it was 700 mm greater than
the permitted development tolerance for this type of property, as set out in
Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the general Permitted Development Order, 2015.
The owner’s response to contact had been that they were not in a position to
submit a formal planning application.
On considering the matter, it
was felt that the extension did not cause any significant material harm to the
visual character of the area, to the amenities of the neighbours or to highway
safety. Had a planning application been submitted, it would have received a
recommendation that permission be granted. Therefore, in accordance with
Policies CP2 and CP16 of the Core Strategy and saved Policy ENV17 and H15 of
the Rushmoor Local Plan, it was considered neither
expedient or reasonable for the Council to take enforcement action in respect
of the breach of planning control in this case.
RESOLVED: That no further action be taken.