Councillors and committees

Agenda item

Enforcement Action: 48 Maple Road, Surbiton, KT6 4AE


Shared Legal Service) are authorised to:


1.            issue an Enforcement Notice (s) under S. 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), subject to any necessary legal amendments being made for which authority is delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration in consultation with officers from the London Borough of Merton (for Shared Legal Service SLLP),


2.            withdraw and to vary such notice (s) under S. 173A, and


3.            in the event of non-compliance, take action (s) by way of prosecution under S. 179, S.187A and/or direct action under S. 178 of the Act in respect of the breach of planning control/or for injunctive relief under S.187B.

Resolved that no action is taken





The breach of planning control was the replacement of 22 of the original timber windows with upvc windows. A retrospective planning application was refused in April 2017 and the appeal against the refusal was dismissed in March 2018.


Nos 48 Maple Road is a building of Townscape Merit (locally listed) within the St. Andrews Square Conservation Area Nos 48 and 50 are a pair of semi detached properties part of six similar victorian villas on this section of Maple Road which have the same architectural details and appearance. The majority of the windows of the front and rear elevations of the adjacent properties are traditional timber sash.  The front bay windows are prominent features when viewed from the street.


In dismissing the appeal the Inspector commented that whilst an attempt had been made to replicate the profile and detail of the original timber sash windows the glazing bars appear thicker and starker than timber when viewed from the street and the detailing is not as fine as their timber equivalents

Whilst there are other examples of unpermitted uPVC windows within the conservation area, these have become immune to enforcement action due to the ‘4 year rule and serve to highlight the impact on the Conservation Area.


The owner had agreed to replace all 22 of the windows in 2 phases via the enforcement process within 22 months.


Authority was sought to issue enforcement notices requiring the removal of the upvc windows and frames and replacement with windows and frames that match the profile, design and materials of the pre-existing windows.


Marian Kelly, representing the owner, referred to the letter circulated to the Committee from the owner. In this she explained the circumstances which had led her to believe that it was not an error to replace the windows, including not having a notification of the building being listed as of Townscape Merit. The letter also referred to a property, similarly listed, and in a Conservation Area where upvc replacement had been permitted.

Ms Kelly referred to the replacement of some windows at the front of the adjoining no 50 with upvc, and all of the windows at the rear.  These date from 2012 and so are immune from any enforcement action.


The Planning Officer referred to national regulations and the duty to preserve the Conservation Area.  In a similar case last year the Committee had agreed enforcement action. 


The Committee were of mixed opinions on the proposed action.  Some felt that better detailing could have been achieved within the style of the upvc windows and supported the enforcement on the windows on the frontage but not the rear. Other members did not consider the impact on the frontage from the street to be so great as to warrant enforcement.


A motion to take enforcement action on the front windows only was moved and seconded.


An amendment not to enforce was moved and seconded.


The amendment was carried 6:5.


The substantive motion was carried 6:5.


Resolved that no enforcement action is taken





For Councillors Mark Beynon, Liz Green, Sam Foulder-Hughes, Sharron Falchikov-Sumner, John Sweeney and Yogan Yoganathan.


Against: Councillors Sushila Abraham, Hilary Gander, Alison Holt, Malcolm Self, and Diane White


Not Voting  - Councillor Anita Schaper, who had been out of the room for a short time, not having heard all the discussion was unable to vote, as this is a regulatory decision.


Supporting documents: