Agenda item

Description:

Redevelopment of the site to provide 5 buildings of varying height comprising 12,787 square metres of office floor space (Use Class B1a) and 253 residential units (Class C3), provision of a new landscaped area, vehicular access, car parking, cycle storage and energy centre.

 

Additional Information:

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported an update in respect of ecology matters by reference to the Habitat Regulations Assessment which had been circulated to the Committee.  Reference was drawn to the 2^nd page – “Note in respect of the former Centrica site:”

 

“The application site is in close proximity (433 metres) to the nearest part of the South West London Waterbodies Special Protection Area (SPA) which is a European designated site and also designated under the Ramsar Convention.

 

The reservoir is elevated above ground level and there is no public access to the top of the embankment. Between the application site and the reservoir is the A30 Staines Bypass which is a dual carriageway with no footways, the Thames Water Reservoir Aqueduct across which public access is confined to very limited routes and also other intervening open space at Birch Green and Moormede Park which the public can use for recreation. Staines Moor is also a large area of common land to the west of the Reservoir.

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Regulation 61) (referred to as the ’Habitat Regulations’) the Council, as ‘competent authority’, before making  a planning decision in this case, must have regard for any potential impacts the proposal may have. This is called a ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’.  In making this assessment the Council must consult the appropriate nature conservation body which in this case is Natural England.  It has also consulted Surrey Wildlife Trust.

 

Having regard to the conservation objective for the SPA, which is to maintain it in a favourable condition, Natural England has raised no objection to the proposal (letter dated 4 August 2016).  It has commented specifically “the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment”.  In justification for their conclusion they refer to the intervening barriers and nearby open space which is closer than the reservoir.  As a matter of clarification both the applicant in its Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Natural England in their letter refer to the reservoir aqueduct as a railway.  This is a factual error, but both are structures protected from public access with the aqueduct being at least as great a barrier as a railway and I consider the conclusions provided therefore remain sound. Surrey Wildlife Trust has not made any objection to the proposal in respect of significant adverse impact on the South West London Waterbodies SPA.

 

My assessment under the Regulation 61 of the ‘Habitat Regulations’ is that, having regard to the advice given, this proposal will have no significant effect on the South West London Waterbodies SPA and on this issue planning permission can be safely granted.”

 

The Assistant Head of Planning (Development Management) reported the following amendments to the Committee report:

 

8.22, 4^th line should read “Block E”.

 

8.29 should also refer to 2 further studio units of 34 sq m.

 

8.48, 4^th line – should refer to Staines Moor not Stanwell Moor

 

8.118 – Conclusion – delete paragraph and replace with:

 

“For the reasons set out in detail above, it is considered that the application is acceptable having regard to the Council’s adopted policies contained in the Core Strategy and Policies DPD and national guidance.  This is subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement as set out in 9 below and a number of conditions and informatives.  In the event that the S106 is not completed to the satisfaction of LPA and an extension of time to determine the application is not agreed by the applicant, the application should be refused planning permission as set out on pages 47 and 48 of the Planning Committee report.

 

Amendment to the Heads of Terms set out on page 47 to add the following:

 

h) Stopping up of the highway within the application site and dedicating land as part of the highway in accordance with Peter Bret plan 3467 022A and an e mail dated 29/09/2016 titled Staines Central Land Ownership Issues sent to SCC highways.

 

Consultation response received from the Pollution Control Officer recommending additional conditions and informatives as follows:

 

Substitute condition 11 with the following condition:

Prior to occupation, details of a scheme electric vehicle charging provision are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  A minimum of 16 charging bays (including two fast charging bays) are to be installed for residential occupiers for use from first occupation, and cable provision made for a minimum of a further 26 charging bays.  A minimum provision of 5% of vehicle parking spaces for occupiers of the offices are to be installed with fast electric charging for use from first occupation.

 

Reason: - To ensure that the development accords with policies CC2 and EN3 of the Cores Strategy and Policies DPD in respect of air quality impacts and sustainable travel.

 

Informative: The scheme for electric charging provision should include location and infrastructure plans of the charging bays, technical specification of the charger units, access arrangements (including any payments) and procedures for provision of additional charging units. Installation means that the units are fully operational, all signage and marking is complete, and any payment systems are active. All office charging spaces should be installed with fast chargers rather than trickle points – so that electric vehicles for office workers and visitors can achieve an 80% charge within 3-4 hours fitting the parking demand and user profile.

 

Condition: Prior to occupation, details of public rapid electric vehicle charging provision are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Charging is to be installed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

Reason: - To ensure that the development accords with policies CC2 and EN3 of the Cores Strategy and Policies DPD in respect of air quality impacts and sustainable travel.

 

Informative: The scheme for electric charging provision should include location and infrastructure plans of the charging bays, technical specification of the charger units, access arrangements (including any payments) and procedures for provision of additional charging units. Installation means that the units are fully operational, all signage and marking is complete, and any payment systems are active

 

Condition: Prior to occupation, a car club scheme for the residential units containing relevant provisions will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with those details. Such a scheme should contain the following:

 

a.    Confirmation of approval of the particular car club provider and   location of the dedicated car club bay(s), readily accessible to both on-site residents and the wider community;

b.    Confirmation that on first occupation of each of the residential units forming part of the development and thereafter from first occupation a new resident shall be notified in writing of

        1.     the existence of the car club;

        2.     explaining that each residential unit is entitled to join the car club                 without being liable for payment of the membership fee; and

        3.     details of how to become a member of the car club.

c.    Confirmation that the car club membership shall be fully transferable from outgoing residents to incoming residents; and

d.    Confirmation that the applicant will provide on written request by the Council evidence of the car club membership for each residential unit within the development.

 

Reason: - To ensure that the development accords with policies CC2 and EN3 of the Cores Strategy and Policies DPD in respect of air quality impacts and sustainable travel

 

Additional condition as follows:

 

Details of the proposed pedestrian refuge to Fairfield Avenue shall be submitted to and approved by writing by the Local Planning authority and provided as agreed prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use.

 

Reason: To provide a safe means of access across Fairfield Avenue and in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway user, and to accord with the NOPPF 2012 and policy cc2 of the Spelthorne CS DPD 2009.

 

Amended condition

Condition 31 amended as follows:

 

:  Prior to use a “Within three months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise report…”     

 

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s public speaking procedures, Jeff Field spoke for the proposal raising the following key points:

 

·Site remained undeveloped for far too long

·Have worked with Council staff on scheme

·NPPF supports housing and economic development

·Have responded to comments from Design South East

·Site is highly accessible

·Improved design over previous scheme, higher quality

·High specification residential

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

·          Housing design is favourable

·          Parking issues

·          Too many bicycles

·          Air pollution concerns

·          Concerns over light loss to dwellings

·          Query over Habitat Regs.

·          Concern that  £3.6m is a small amount of money for this scheme

·          Good that something is happening with the site after many years

·          Concern over off site affordable housing contribution and lack of sites       within the Borough to provide affordable housing. Provision should be       on site

·          Lack of on-site play space for children

·          Off-site nearest play space is small

·          Concerns over car club

·          Height and density concerns

·          Development is bigger than previous approval

·          CIL will not pay for education, doctors surgery needed

 

Decision:

The application was approved as per the officer report and subject to the amendments set out above and the prior completion of the S106 agreement.  If the S106 is not completed satisfactorily and the applicant does not agree an extension of time, the application is refused.