Halliford and Sunbury West
Outline application with all matters reserved other than 'access' for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and the redevelopment of the site for a residential-led development comprising up to 43 residential homes, a 62-bed care home and the provision of open space, plus associated works for landscaping, parking areas, pedestrian, cycle and vehicular routes.
To refuse the planning application.
This planning application sought the demolition of existing buildings and structures to be followed by the redevelopment of the site for a residential-led development comprising up to 43 residential homes, a 62-bed care home, provision of open space, and other associated works.
The Planning Development Manager provided the following updates:
1. A letter has been received from the agent responding to the committee report:
· They clarify a few points about the scale, building line and public open space for the development
· They have requested that their Parameters Plan relating to proposed building heights (drawing no. D1002-P1) is withdrawn from the application.
[Officer comment: this removes the height limit of the buildings]
· Reference is made to the Council’s recently published Stage 2 Green Belt Assessment, the proposed emerging Local Plan, and the Local Plan Preferred Options Rejected Site Analysis.
[Officer comment: this is not considered relevant to the consideration of this planning application]
· The letter also refers to the applicant’s considerations put forward in favour of the development (their case for ‘very special circumstances’).
[Officer comment: these are already covered in the report]
2. 1 additional petition-style support card has been received.
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, James Good spoke (2 minutes) ‘For’ the proposed development raising the following key points:
· Is a reduced development since the refused scheme
· Provision of permanent public space to the rear of the site
· Does not refer to Green Belt Local Plan assessment
· Removal of industrial eyesore.
· Community benefits
· Housing need
In accordance with the Council’s Public Speaking procedures, Surrey County Councillor Tim Evans spoke (1 minute) ‘For’ the application raising the following comments:
· Provides much needed affordable housing
· A pedestrian crossing is provided
· Proposal has local community support
· Recommendation is mean spirited
· The Committee should not be pressurised by the Planning Department into reusing the application
During the debate the following key issues were raised:
· Query over how the site is classed as strongly performing
· Will improve the green belt and provide significant benefits for the community
· Will provide much needed 50% affordable housing
· Will provide a play space
· No objection from the County Highway Authority
· No flooding objection
· No objection from the police
· Green belt objections
· Could provide much taller buildings
· Impact on the openness of the green belt
· Will provide a care home
· Very special circumstances apply
· Large green belt development approved at Shepperton Studios
· Will provide a large area of open space to the west
· There has been no contact by the applicant with the Group
Head of Neighbourhood Services, for some 18 months, regarding the open space
There is no requirement for additional public open space in this area, does not meet CIL regulations
· Complies with policy EN8
· Considered to comply with policy EN2
· Replacement planting proposed
· Very thorough and balanced report but differ in opinion in overall
· Is an eyesore and downtrodden site
· Pedestrian crossing is proposed on Upper Halliford Road (Officer note:
this was not required by Surrey Highway Authority)
· Attractive scheme but is only an outline proposal
· Would set a precedent for development on Green Belt land
· Every planning application should be considered on its merits
· Contrary to NPPF green belt objective of preventing neighbouring
towns from merging into one another
· Concern over where the development will be built
· Waste transfer site would be removed
· Complaints over exiting use, removal dirty, smelly, noisy activities
· Residents support the proposal
· Roof pitches can provide accommodation
The Application was Refused as recommended in the Planning Committee Report.