Agenda item

Ward

Laleham and Shepperton Green

 

Proposal

Demolition of existing buildings/structures including Ash House and Oak House in Littleton Road and redevelopment of the site with the erection of two buildings subdivided into seven units for speculative B2 general industrial, B8 storage and distribution, and E(g)(iii) light industrial purposes with ancillary offices, together with associated car parking servicing and landscape planting.

 

Recommendation

Refuse the application for the reasons set out at Paragraph 8 of the Report

Description:

Demolition of existing buildings/structures including Ash House and Oak House in Littleton Road and redevelopment of the site with the erection of two buildings subdivided into seven units for speculative B2 general industrial, B8 storage and distribution, and E(g)(iii) light industrial purposes with ancillary offices, together with associated car parking servicing and landscape planting.

 

Additional Information:

 

Matthew Churchill, Principal Planning Officer reported on the following updates:

 

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.

An additional sentence is added to the end of paragraph 1.6 to read “However, it should be noted that employment land would be safeguarded by policy EC1 in the new local plan.”

A further letter of representation has been received commenting on HGV movements on surrounding roads and the need for restrictions.

 

 

Public Speaking:

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

 

-This development would have an unacceptable overbearing impact upon the residents of in Spelthorne Lane

-The proposal was contrary to objectives of the Council’s Core Strategy, Policies and National Planning Policy Framework

-The site coverage was doubled

-The site was in an inappropriate location

-The increase in heavy goods vehicular traffic in the area would increase hazards to pedestrians

-There would be no restrictions on the operation of the warehouse which would create excessive noise

-There would be disturbance to local residents and wildlife through the general operations on site

-There was a significant shortfall in parking spaces for the number of anticipated employees

-The site offered poor public transport links and would result in additional on street parking which was already at a premium in the immediate vicinity

-The acoustic barrier had an unacceptable impact upon the street scene and character of the surrounding area

-The proposal to bring the building line to that currently occupied by Littleton House would encroach upon the privacy of the residents in Littleton Road

-It would be more in keeping with the area for a development of Class E Commercial, Business and Service enterprise or additional residential properties

 

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

 

 -This site was a designated Employment Area within the Local Plan

-Industrial use is safeguarded and encouraged

-The applicant had made an effort to mitigate any impacts on nearby residential properties

-All statutory consultees raised no objection

-The scheme made the most efficient use of the land required by policy

-There was a need to develop a high quality scheme

-There were no technical issues to be addressed

-The site was not overdeveloped

 -there was no guidance in respect of separation distances for commercial development

-The BRE 25-degree rule that the scheme complies with was not discussed in the report

-Little mention was made of the daylight assessment which factually demonstrated that the proposed scheme was acceptable

-County Highways confirmed the scheme was acceptable including the parking provision

-The site would provide an excellent opportunity to encourage sustainable travel patterns

-Concerns regarding overdevelopment and overbearing impact did not outweigh the substantial benefits of the scheme

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

-The restoration or reuse of the building as residential properties would be better than demolishing the existing building

-This proposal was for the wrong area

-There were 167 letters of objection to this application

-A petition signed by 185 local residents raised opposition to this scheme

-This was an overdevelopment with houses and gardens backing onto the site

-Neighbouring properties had a right to privacy

-There was inadequate parking

-Public transport for employees on site would be poor

-There was already enough congestion in the area

-Statutory consultees had recommended conditions and informatives reflecting flaws with the application

-This proposal would exacerbate the noise problem in the area

-The applicant did not present intended uses of the proposed warehouse

 

A recorded vote was requested by Councillor Howkins.

 

 

 

For (0)
Against (15):	M Gibson, D Geraci, C Bateson, S Beatty, M Beecher, M Buck, T Burrell, R Chandler, S Dunn, K Howkins, M Lee, A Mathur, L Nichols, K Rutherford, H Williams
Abstain (0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision:

The application was refused as recommended.