Agenda item

Ward

Laleham and Shepperton Green

Proposal

The use of Building 3 for the storage of equipment and materials ancillary to vehicle body repairs, Building 4 for the storage of plant and equipment for groundworks / civils, Building 6 for the storage of plant and equipment for groundworks / civils, Building 11 for general storage, Building 15 for the manufacture of exhibition equipment and Building 17 as a café, for a temporary period ending 01 May 2026

Recommendation

Approve the application subject to conditions set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report

Description:

The use of Building 3 for the storage of equipment and materials ancillary to vehicle body repairs, Building 4 for the storage of plant and equipment for groundworks / civils, Building 6 for the storage of plant and equipment for groundworks / civils, Building 11 for general storage, Building 15 for the manufacture of exhibition equipment and Building 17 as a cafe, for a temporary period ending 01 May 2026.

Additional Information:

Russ Mounty, Team Leader, Planning Development Management reported on the following update:

Financial Considerations

Under S155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, Local Planning Authorities are now required to ensure that potential financial benefits of certain development proposals are made public when a Local Planning Authority is considering whether or not to grant planning permission for planning applications which are being determined by the Council’s Planning Committee.  A financial benefit must be recorded regardless of whether it is material to the Local Planning Authority’s decision on a planning application, but planning officers are required to indicate their opinion as to whether the benefit is material to the application or not. In consideration of S155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.  The proposal is not CIL liable.  It would be liable to pay business rates, but this is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this proposal.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, James Leuenberger spoke for the proposed developments in applications 23/00517/FUL and 23/00518/FUL raising the following key points:

-Changes in use would support the existing employment offer provided by the site

-The wider redevelopment of the site was approved by members in August 2021

-The applicant was in the process of reviewing the various pre-commencement actions required to bring this development forward

-The proposed change of use would provide clarity to existing tenants and ensure lawful operation

-The proposal did not represent inappropriate development

-There was not a material change of use that would impact the Green Belt. 

-The principle of the proposed commercial uses was acceptable

-There was no impact upon the character and appearance of the area, the highway network including vehicle movements, and the flood risk of the area

-No objections or comments were received from statutory bodies

-This was an improvement on the use of the site

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Karen Howkins spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:

-There would be an increase in lorry movements within the local vicinity

-The site was earmarked for inclusion within the River Flood Relief Thames Diversion

-The site should operate on a uniform expiry date as opposed to differing dates

-The site should be cleaned for return to public use as promised by operators

-The applicant should be given a timed planning application until August 2024

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

-There may be increased traffic movement resulting from the changed use of skips to shipping containers. Officers clarified that there would be less traffic movement as a result of this changed use.

-There would be more pollution as a result of the increased lorry movements in the area

-Local residents associations had spent time liaising and waiting for the applicant to commence restorative work

-The site in it’s current state included whole areas of desolate land with no skips

-The uses of shipping containers was not clear

The Committee voted on the application as follows:

For: 12

Against: 3

Abstain: 0

Decision:

The application was approved as recommended.