Agenda item

Ward

Stanwell North Ward

Proposal

Land at Northumberland Close, Stanwell

Officer recommendation

This planning application is recommended for refusal.

Description:

This application sought the erection of a building comprising 8,241 square metres to provide warehousing and distribution/logistics (Class B8) and associated offices together with associated access, loading/uploading, car parking, servicing and landscaping.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

1.  A response was received from Highways England raising no objection.

2.  An Addendum to the revised Air Quality Assessment was submitted. The Council’s Pollution Control Officer had since responded by removing her objection to the proposal on air quality grounds subject to conditions relating to dust and electric vehicle charging. Consequently reason for refusal 6 on Section 9 (Recommendation) of the committee report was removed.

3.  A revised noise impact assessment was submitted. However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer responded by maintaining her objection on noise impact grounds.

4.  The Heathrow consultation (para 8.75, page 87) expired on the 13/09/2019.  Spelthorne Council had sent a consultation response to this.

5.  A late response from the applicant was received commenting on the objections raised by local residents under paragraph 6.2 of the report.  Most of the points raised had been covered in the committee report.  Of the other issues, many did not relate to the application or were not planning matters. With regard to ‘overlooking/loss of privacy’ and ‘noise and dust during construction’, these issues could be addressed by conditions if the application was approved.  With regard to ‘open space’, there was no planning designation on the site for open space in the current Local Plan.

6.  Two late letters were received from the applicant. The first letter was confirming an interest from an operator JAS (Jet Air Service) who had expressed interest in occupying the building subject to planning permission.  The second letter was from Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) dated December 2018 to the owner of the land indicating HAL’s potential interest in acquiring the land.

7.  Amendment to paragraph 3.1 of the committee report:

3.1 The site has the following planning history:

FUL/90/346                  

Erection of 1,692 sq m (18,212 sq ft) of Class B8 storage and distribution warehousing with ancillary office accommodation, and provision of car and lorry parking.

Approved

19/09/1990

8.            Amendment to paragraph 8.6 of the committee report:

8.6 The GBA identified two tiers of land parcels: Strategic Green Belt Areas (‘Strategic Areas’) and Local Green Belt Areas (‘Local Areas’).  The assessment divided Spelthorne into two strategic areas that were consistent with the areas adopted by Elmbridge Borough Council for its GBA.  The application site lies within ‘Strategic Area B A’ which is described in paragraph 4.3.1 of the GBA as “a band of Green Belt maintaining separation between a number of settlements including Ashford / Sunbury-on-Thames / Stanwell, Staines-upon-Thames / Shepperton / Walton-on-Thames, and Chertsey, Addlestone, and Egham.a north-eastern band of Green Belt at the very edge of London which separates the London fringe settlements (e.g. Bedfont, Feltham, Sunbury-on-Thames and Hampton) from settlements to the south-west.”  In its conclusion (section 7), the assessment affirms that this area “plays an important role in meeting the fundamental aim of the Green Belt through preventing sprawl from settlements in Surrey by keeping land permanently open”. 

9.            Amendment to paragraphs 8.27 and 8.29 of the committee report:

8.27      The site is adjacent to existing residential properties on the western side (Clare Road) and to the north east (Cleveland Park).   The proposed building will be almost 38 metres away from the 222 Clare Road’s rear elevation which is the nearest dwelling and some 21 metres from the neighbouring rear boundaries. The proposed building at this point slopes to a lower height of 14 metres at the eaves.  The overall height is 16.19 metres (roof apex). The proposed development on its western elevation presents a continuous wall of development of 164 165 metres.

Whilst it is noted that the proposal would be further set in from the adjacent residential properties along Clare Road compared to the refused scheme, the proposed building would be greater in height.  The proposed development would still present a continuous mass of the 164  165 metre western elevation and due to its height, form and bulk would appear visually obtrusive and dominating, particularly for the neighbouring occupiers when using their gardens.  Whilst some degree of screening has been proposed by the applicant in the form of tree planting, the Council’s Tree Officer is of a view that the proposed trees along the western side would not be large enough to facilitate adequate screening.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the public speaking procedures, Jemma Brown spoke against the proposal raising the following comments:

• Overbearing
• Overbearing and loss of privacy
• The use will take place 19-20 hours per day – 4am – midnight
• Noise concerns
• Light concerns
• Concerns over vibrations
• Concerns over fumes
• Adverse impact on residents
• Will affect the mental health well-being of residents

In accordance with the public speaking procedures, Ian Anderson spoke for the proposal raising the following comments:

• Heathrow is the only Airport in the country for logistics
• The use needs to be close to the airport
• The site has been assessed as weakly performing green belt
• Will provide an off-site cargo handling facility
• There is a clear need for significant cargo space
• This site will get developed
• The applicant has a potential operator
• Very special circumstance exist as the proposal is linked to the operation of Heathrow

In accordance with the public speaking procedures, Ward Councillor S.M. Doran spoke on the proposal raising the following comments:

• The site is designated as Green Belt
• The proposal does not meet the requirements in the NPPF
• Very special circumstance have not been met
• There are bats on the site
• It is already a highly polluted area
• The building will be dominant
• Loss of privacy
• The mental health well-being of residents will be affected
• Light pollution.

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• The site is assessed as weakly performing green belt
• The site is allocated within the proposed Development Consent Order
• Concern that the officers have not worked positively and proactively with the applicant
• It is very similar to that refused in 2015
• A satisfactory relationship with residential properties has to be achieved as required by policy EN1b – concern over impact on residents and is contrary to this policy
• Is greater in height compared with the refused scheme
• The building has a continuous mass which is visually obtrusive
• A 6m high acoustic fence does not solve the noise objection and will have an overbearing impact
• The site will be developed in the future
• Proposal is contrary to policy SP6
• Who has to demonstrate very special circumstances
• Could set a precedent for other development on the green belt
• Is an appalling layout in relation to the existing dwellings
• Will result in the removal of trees and replanting
• It is not necessary to use the entrance in Northumberland Close
• There is insufficient land for housing

·         Will provide jobs at Heathrow

Decision:

The application was refused as recommended and for the reasons set out at paragraph 9. in the Planning Committee report, subject to the deletion of reason 6.