At a meeting of the Planning Committee, councillors voted to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve an application relating to 100 Church Road, Teddington, with amendments to conditions around windows. The application sought to remove a condition restricting working hours, and allow the building to be used 24/7. Councillors agreed to impose additional restrictions over obscured windows to the third floor of the building facing Railway Road.

100 Church Road, Teddington

Councillors voted to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve application 25/0069/VRC, with additional conditions relating to obscured glazing. The application concerned 100 Church Road, the location of the offices of the Tearfund, an international aid agency. The application sought to remove condition UM10, which restricts the working hours of the building. The report relating to the application noted that the condition stated:

No work shall be carried out on the premises on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, nor before 8am nor after 6pm on Monday – Friday nor before 8am nor after 1pm on Saturdays REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of local residents.

Chris Tankard, a council officer, told the committee that the building is in a designated key office area. He explained that the original consent for offices with integral parking was granted in 1991, and that the parking area was later converted fully to offices in 2000. Mr Tankard advised that the current application seeks to allow the premises to be used 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for any purpose falling within use class E¹. He noted that the council did not consider that a full class E use would be appropriate, given the proximity of residential properties on Railway Road. He suggested the imposition of a condition that would allow the existing use rights between the hours previously permitted, but restrict the additional hours to office, light industrial, research and development uses, and high street offices.

Gordon May, speaking on behalf of Tearfund, told the committee that the organisation has been based at the address for more than 30 years, and that the building is now too large for their needs. He explained that they had entered into a conditional sale of the property, which includes a lease back of a reduced area. Mr May said that the staff operate outside of normal office hours due to the nature of their work, and that they had been doing so for decades without complaints.

Duncan Thompson, a planning consultant, also spoke to the committee. He stated that the UM10 restriction is outdated and inconsistent with current policy, and that it has not been complied with for decades without complaint. He argued that the 1990 and 1991 permissions did not include a specific condition restricting the use of B1 offices², and that the building lawfully became part of open class E when the 2020 use classes came into force. Mr Thompson said that Tearfund could apply for a certificate of lawfulness confirming unrestricted working hours within class E, but instead chose the section 73 route³ so that the council could secure conditions to protect neighbours in perpetuity.

Councillor Vassileva said that modern working demands flexible hours, and that the organisation has been working well with neighbours for years. However, she noted that this would change with the sale of the building, and that the conditions should reflect this.

Councillor McNulty-Howard raised concerns about the expansion of parking space and the commercialisation of the building, and the potential environmental impact. Mr May responded that Tearfund encourages staff to use environmentally friendly forms of transport, and that a controlled parking zone⁴ has been brought in to restrict parking.

Councillor Jonathan Cardy, asked whether the reason that Tearfund was making the application was because they wanted to be able to sublet part of the office building to potential new tenants without any significant restrictions. Mr Thompson responded that the building had been difficult to sell, and that they had finally found a buyer who is a service office provider. He said that the contract was subject to the condition being removed, but that legal advice suggested that the condition was unenforceable.

Councillor Cardy said that residents liked having Tearfund as a neighbour, and were concerned about who the additional tenants would be. He also raised concerns about the height of the building and its impact on residents in Railway Road, particularly in relation to overlooking. He suggested that if the committee was minded to grant the application, it should only do so for the four-storey part of the building.

Councillor Julia Neden-Watts asked Councillor Cardy for feedback from people who live in Railway Road. Councillor Cardy said that he had spoken to a number of residents, who were concerned about the possibility of having a hundred extra people working in the building on the weekend. He also said that residents were concerned about overlooking, and that if the restriction of obscure glazing could be extended to the most intrusive floor, it would be appreciated.

A council officer clarified that the consent would allow existing user rights on a 24-hour basis for office purposes, light industrial, research and development, and other uses such as estate agents, solicitors, and architects. However, it would exclude uses such as retail stores, restaurants, and fish and chip shops from being 24-hour. The officer also stated that there was no evidence that the building had ever been used 24/7, and that the onus would be on the applicant to prove that they had been using it for 24 hours on a Sunday for a continuous 10-year period.

Councillor Neden-Watts asked about the effectiveness and enforceability of internal blinds, and whether it would be possible to glaze the third story of the building. A council officer responded that there was a justification for requiring obscure glazing to be fitted, and that there was an argument for further obscure glazing to the side windows if there was a 24-hour use.

Councillor Chas Warlow asked what recourse residents would have if they felt that there was a nuisance. A council officer responded that they would be able to fall back on the conditions targeting noise and light pollution. Councillor Warlow also asked whether condition NSO2 was reasonable, proportionate, and enforceable. The officer responded that it was compliant with the terms of what the building would be used for, and that it was specific and not vague.

Councillor Ian Craigie asked for a scenario where condition NS02 adds value to the residents, given all the other conditions. The officer responded that if there were multiple uses in the building, such as a 24-hour Tesco, there would be servicing implications and deliveries that would create disturbance.

Councillor Anton McNulty-Howard said that it seemed that the seller wanted the council to acknowledge that it did not have the power to put into effect the restriction that the buyer was not wanting to take on board. He asked whether it was a legally sound route, or whether it should be put aside. The officer responded that if planning permission was granted, there would not be a right of appeal against the decision notice in full.

Councillor Cardy asked whether the combination of conditions NSO4 and 8.14 was limiting the existing prayer roof terrace to prayer, or whether something could be put on to limit that roof terrace to the equivalent of quiet use. The officer responded that there was a noise condition being recommended, and that it would be difficult to argue that it should be limited to silent prayer.

Councillor Neden-Watts proposed an amendment to add the obscure glazing condition to all floors facing Railway Road. This was carried by five votes to two. Councillors then voted in favour of the amended officer's recommendation.