Ward

Staines

Proposal

Demolition of existing industrial buildings and redevelopment to provide 2 new buildings (5-13 storeys) comprising 397 build-to-rent residential apartments (Use Class C3) including affordable housing, ancillary residential areas (flexible gyms, activity space, concierge and residents lounge), landscaping, children’s play area and cycle parking.

Recommendation

The recommendation is to approve the application subject to a legal agreement and conditions as set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report.

Description:

Demolition of existing industrial buildings and redevelopment to provide 2 new buildings (5-13 storeys) comprising 397 build-to-rent residential apartments (Use Class C3) including affordable housing, ancillary residential areas (flexible gyms, activity space, concierge and residents lounge), landscaping, children’s play area and cycle parking.

Additional Information:

Members will have received two briefing notes from the applicant that have sought to address specific planning issues. One of the issues the applicant has sought to improve is parking provision and they have submitted a revised basement parking layout Drwg L800 Rev P4 which provides an additional 11 parking spaces taking the provision to 0.51 spaces per unit (a total of 203 spaces). The applicant maintains their position that the level of parking is acceptable in planning terms and meets the operational needs.

As a result of this revised plan it is recommended that Condition 2 be revised to refer to drawing L(-)800 Rev P4.

It has been noted that after Condition 26 in the report, incomplete conditions have been appended. These should be deleted from the report as a drafting error.

The applicant has requested that certain conditions allow for demolition and/or site preparations works to be undertaken. It is therefore recommended that condition 10 (archaeology) and condition 17 (Travel Plan) be amended as follows:

10.      No development, excepting demolition to slab level, shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation, submitted tom and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

17.       Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of demolition or site preparation works, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the substantive development aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Surrey County Council’s ‘Travel Plans Good Practice Guide’. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented upon first occupation and for each and every subsequent occupation of the development, thereafter maintain and develop the Travel Plan to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Para 7.45 and 7.46 of the report refers to specific paragraphs within section 12 of the NPPF 2019 concerning design. The NPPF 2021 retains this guidance, but has altered the paragraph numbers and the section has put greater emphasis on the provision of good design in development.

An additional Heads of Terms is to be added to the proposed Section 106 legal agreement (paragraph 8A of the report) to secure the development as ‘Build to Rent’.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Anne Damerell spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-       The proposed development is higher than the consented scheme

-       The flats are too small

-       The proposed rent is too high

-       Lack of adequate amenity space

-       The children’s play area is too small and badly sited

-       Inaccessible to some people with mobility issues

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Rachel Allwood spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

-       Planning for this site was agreed in 2018 but did not make efficient use of the site

-       There will be a good mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom homes

-       All of the flats meet the National Space Standards

-       Affordable housing has been increased from 25 to 40

-       Homes are fully furnished and rent includes utility bills and WiFi

-       Development would positively contribute to the regeneration of the Town Centre.

-       The homes are energy efficient with consumption-reducing technology and heat pumps providing at least 10% on-site renewable energy

-       The proposed development provides 203 parking spaces

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-       The Travel Plan statistics do not take into account visitors, delivery drivers so are flawed

-       Outline planning permission granted in 2018 had parking provision of 1 car p/unit and this has now decreased

-       The building does not make a positive contribution to the street scene as it is considered to be overbearing

-       The development will provide much needed rental properties

-       The increase in residents will have a positive economic impact on local businesses

-       Lack of amenity space will be a problem for families with children

-       The initial outline approval was acceptable but the revised plans are not

-       The size of the proposed development is a reality due to the increasing population

-       Residents with cars would be forced to park on surrounding residential streets causing unacceptable parking issues

-       Density is too great

-       British Telecom have expressed concerns over safety on the one road that would service Charter Square, London Square and this proposed development

-       Being in a Town Centre would not necessarily lead to a reduction in residents using their cars

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor J Vinson. The voting was as follows:

The motion to approve the application fell.

It was proposed by Councillor M Gibson and seconded by Councillor R Noble that the application be refused as it was in contravention of EN1a and CC3.

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor J Vinson. The voting was as follows:

Decision: The application was REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposal, by virtue of the variation in scale, height and bulk, the increase in density and the inadequate justification to support the reduction in car parking, represent an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site resulting in a development which is likely to result in unacceptable parking stress on residential roads in the locality which would be detrimental to the amenity of residential properties, contrary to Policies EN1(a) and CC3 of the Spelthorne Borough Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009, and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance, 2011.