Decisions

Description:

This Item sought the confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 263/2019, Front verge at entrance to Shaftesbury Crescent, adjacent to 283 Ashford Road, to protect one multi-stemmed tree on this site.

 

Decision:

The Tree Preservation Order 263/2019 was confirmed without modification.

Description:

This Application was for the erection of an enclosed patio area to provide an external seating area for visitors to the Greeno Centre including erection of railing boundary enclosure of 1.8m in height.

 

Additional Information:

Consultation response from the Council’s Pollution Control Officer raising no objection was reported.

 

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers for this item.

 

Debate:

During the debate, the following key issues were raised:

 

• The facility is a great asset
• The facility is well used

 

Decision:

The application was approved as set out in the Planning Committee Report.

 

Description:

This application was for the erection of two buildings to provide 173 residential homes (Class C3) and flexible commercial space at ground and first floors (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), with landscaping and associated works, to be delivered as an extension to the wider redevelopment of 17-51 London Road under application 19/00290/FUL, comprising an additional 22 homes above those within application 19/00290/FUL.

 

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

 

Due to the way the legal agreements were to be linked,the Planning Committee should be aware that this application had been considered as an amendment to the existing planning approval 19/00290/FUL.  The finance considerations in para. 7.118 (page 131) and recommendation to grant in s9 (A) 1 and 2 (page 132) therefore reflected the variation to the existing s106 to account for the existing requirements and the additional 20 units at 15 London Road and 2 additional affordable housing units to Block E, resulting from this application.

 

The conditions at s9 (B) (page 134 onwards) also reflected those attached to the existing planning approval 19/00290/FUL with appropriate amendments to incorporate the additional 20 units at 15 London Road and 2 additional affordable housing units to Block E, resulting from this application.

 

Additional Condition

An additional condition was recommended, as requested by the County Archaeology Officer:

 

Condition: No development, with the exception of demolition to slab level, shall take place within plot 15 London Road until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, to be conducted in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

 

In the interests of the Staines Area of High Archaeological Potential, in accordance with Saved Policy BE25.

 

Public Speaking:

There were no public speakers for this item.

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• The principle of high development has already been accepted
• 15 London Road should have been demolished a long time ago
• Will assist with our housing need
• Will improve the appearance of London Road
• Concern over traffic signals nearby
• Concerns that CHP is not renewable energy

 

Decision:

The application was approved as set out in the Planning Committee Report, subject to the prior completion of a S106 agreement.

 

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.

 

 

Description:

The application sought the provision of a 31 bed homeless hostel for single people on the site of the former White House, adjacent to the Council depot, on Kingston Road. The building is to be managed for Spelthorne Borough Council by the Salvation Army.

 

The proposed hostel use is a sui generis use meaning it does not fall within a specific use class of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), and specifically is not considered to be a residential use.

As such the Council’s policies that apply to residential development were not applicable to this specific development.

 

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

 

11 additional letters of objection were received.

2 additional letters of support were received.

1 additional complaint letter was received.

 

Para 7.45, page 30 should read:-

The block plan also shows that the closest window within the proposed development, for the units on the north west corner, would be 38m 36m to the front side boundary from the park boundary and over 40m from the rear side boundary to 364 in Kingston Road.

 

Replacement Condition
Condition 9 should be replaced with the following condition:

 

1.)The rated noise level from the plant hereby approved shall be at least 10 dB(A) below the background noise level at the nearest noise sensitive property as assessed using the guidance contained within BS4142 (2014).

 

Reason: To ensure that occupiers of neighbouring premises do not suffer a loss of amenity by reason of noise nuisance or the local environment from noise creep due to plant and machinery.

 

Informative

The applicant is advised that machinery, plant/equipment and extract/ventilation system and ducting should be are mounted with proprietary anti-vibration isolators and fan motors should be vibration isolated from the casing and adequately silenced.   The reason for this is to ensure that the amenity of occupiers of the development site/ surrounding premises is not adversely affected by vibration.

 

Condition Amendment

Condition 2 to be amended to include the Acoustic Planning Report, June 2019.

 

 

 

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the public speaking procedures, Martin Shortland spoke against the proposal raising the following comments:

 

·He is speaking for 500 residents

·The application submission is inaccurate

·The Statement of Community Involvement on consultation has been ignored

·The planning guidelines have been ignored

·A judicial review will be successful

·The site is unsuitable for the proposal

·The road is an accident blackspot

·No pedestrian crossing is provided

·There is limited bus access

·The site is remote

·Overbearing development

·Overdevelopment of the site

·Will set a precedent

·Harmful to residential amenity

 

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

 

·The application is in response to the Homeless Reduction Act - ambitious targets have been set

·It is a Sui Generis use and will have no permitted development rights

·The Council agreed in 2018 to build a hostel

·Building is orientated to minimise overlooking

·Many issues raised in the representations are not planning matters

·The Council has a duty of care

 

In accordance with the public speaking procedures, Ward Councillor C. Bateson spoke on the proposal raising the following comments:

 

·The Council has not fully engaged with the residents

·The location is unsuitable

·The height of the building is excessive

·The building is located too close to the residents

·Road / pedestrian safety concerns

·The site is located too far to local amenities

 

Debate:

During the debate, the following key issues were raised:

 

• The Planning Committee report addresses all the planning issues
• Concern over pedestrian safety
• Query over disabled access
• Query over the possible use of the adjoining land
• Will be managed by the Salvation Army who has immeasurable experience
• Query over Sui Generis use
• Concern over the height of the building
• Proximity to residents
• The Council has a duty of care to rehouse homeless people
• Query over whether the site is appropriate next to the Depot

 

Decision:

The application was approved subject to conditions, as recommended in the Planning Committee report, and as amended above.

 

Councillor C. Barnard took no part in the debate or vote on this item, due to his late arrival.

Cabinet considered a report on the appointment of a member to the Independent Remuneration Panel.

 

Resolved to recommend that Council approves the appointment of Alison Osmond to the Independent Remuneration Panel.

 

Reason for decision

The Council is required to establish and maintain an Independent Remuneration Panel consisting of at least three members, none of whom is formally connected with the Council.

 

Cabinet considered a report on a proposed new extension to the Fordbridge Day Centre.

 

The extension would increase the capacity of the dining room to seat 101 visitors and provide a flexible area for other activities such as classes, games or exercise to take place.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Do nothing

 

Resolved to

1.    Recommend to Council a supplementary capital estimate of £130,000 for the proposed extension at the Fordbridge Centre, and its inclusion in the 2019/20 capital programme;

 

2.    Approve the capital spend of £130,000 for the extension; and

 

3.    Agree to proceed with Option 3 as set out in Appendix 1

 

 

Reason for Decision

The Centre is operating at full capacity and cannot currently accommodate additional visitors. The Centre has requested a ground floor extension in order that it can accommodate more visitors for lunch and to access the Centre facilities/activities.

To consider the recommendations of the Local Plan Working Party on Local Plan consultation documents.

Cabinet considered the recommendations from the Local Plan Working Party and noted there would be further opportunities to amend and adjust the documents as work on the Local Plan progressed.

 

Resolved to agree:

1.    the Consultation Strategy, with minor amendments to be delegated to the Strategic Planning Manager and changes of any significance to be referred to the Working Party for agreement;

2.    the general content and scope of the draft policies to be published for consultation, subject to the final wording of the draft policies to be agreed by the Working Party prior to consultation;

3.    the draft allocations to be published for consultation, subject to inclusion of the changes agreed to at the supplementary meeting and final wording to be agreed by the Working Party prior to consultation; and

4.    the evidence base documents be published to support the consultation.

 

To consider a report and recommend the Corporate Risk Register to Cabinet for approval.

Cabinet considered the recommendation of the Audit Committee and

 

Resolved to approve the revised Corporate Risk Register.

To consider the acquisition of a property.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

 

Cabinet considered an exempt report on an opportunity to acquire a site for strategic regeneration within the Borough.

 

The Asset Manager gave a presentation on the proposal setting out the rationale for acquisition, the costs involved, due diligence process and the business plan for the site.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected by the Cabinet:

·         Not to submit a bid for the site.

 

Resolved to:

1.    Approve the acquisition of the site for strategic regeneration within the Borough;

 

2.    Agree the offer submitted for the acquisition, and authorise the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Finance  to undertake any necessary subsequent negotiations (including a further bid if required) and complete the acquisition of the asset;

 

3.    Authorise the Chief Finance Officer to decide (i) the most financially advantageous funding arrangements for the purchase, (ii) the most tax efficient method of holding the asset, and overall to ensure the acquisition is prudentially affordable; 

 

4.    Authorise the Head of Corporate Governance to enter into any legal documentation necessary to acquire the asset;

 

5.    Agree to exempt Contract Standing Orders in respect of our Property Advisors;

 

6.    To delegate the selection of the external property manager, design team and the contractor for the Phase 1 enhancement works to the Group Head of Regeneration and Growth in consultation with the Portfolio Holder; and

 

7.    *To recommend to Council the approval of a supplementary Capital provision of £42m to provide sufficient headroom in the Capital Programme for the acquisition and for the appointment of the design team and the contractors for enhancement projects.

 

Reasons for Decision

This acquisition will enable the Council to directly address the longer term sustainability and regeneration of the Borough.  It is a strategic asset which has the potential to improve the environmental and economic well-being of the area.  The site is prone to be considered for numerous diversified uses all of which have the potential to help the Council achieve its strategic objectives outlined in the Corporate Plan.   

 

 

To consider the acquisition of a property.

To consider the Council’s response to Heathrow consultation 2.

The Leader advised that he would deal with all the items on the agenda together as they related to the same matter.

 

He invited Councillor Leighton, as Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, to address the meeting on the recommendation from the extraordinary meeting held on 3 September 2019. The recommendation was set out in a supplement to the agenda.

 

Councillor Leighton reported that in discussing the Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) work programme with her Vice-Chairman, Councillor McIlroy, following a meeting in July, he was very clear that he wished O&S to scrutinise what was likely to be the most important issue Spelthorne was ever going to face. She agreed at that time to identify a date for a meeting specifically to consider this. At the July Council meeting, the Leader asked the Committee to be involved in considering the Council’s response to Heathrow’s consultation and two motions on the Council’s policy stance were referred to Overview and Scrutiny. The Committee had looked at all the issues in the round and having received presentations, detailed information on the component parts of expansion and discussed the viable options for each issue that the expansion proposals raised, agreed the recommendations now before the Cabinet.

 

She explained that in the past the Council had supported the third runway in principle due to the positive economic benefits it would bring to the Borough and employment for its residents. This support had always been subject to caveats that environmental and noise concerns needed to be mitigated to the Council’s satisfaction and that the Wider Property Offer Zone be extended into the Borough to satisfactorily recompense its residents. She said the Committee was dismayed that despite all efforts not only did the 10 demands seeking mitigation of those concerns remain unaddressed but also that the latest unexpected proposals would be potentially far worse for communities. The recommendation from the Committee had expressed this and that future support for any proposals must be conditional upon the Council’s concerns being met.  

 

The Council had received a petition containing over 400 signatures calling on the Council to engage with the Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Ashford North communities and to actively oppose Heathrow’s Airport expansion plans.

An explanatory letter from the petition organisers and the Petition statement was contained within a supplement to the agenda.

 

In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the matter had been referred to the Cabinet for consideration. The Leader invited Paul Jacobs, on behalf of the petitioners, to address the Cabinet on the Stanwell’s Green Lungs petition.

 

Mr Jacobs called on Spelthorne Borough Council to overturn its support for expansion at Heathrow, due to its plans for open green space in Stanwell and Stanwell Moor and the resulting negative environmental impacts this would bring to those communities.

 

The Leader responded to the petition with the following statement:

 

“Historically, Spelthorne Council has supported Heathrow and the principle of a new North West runway, due to the wider economic benefits it brings to the borough. In December 2016 I put forward a motion in support of the principle of expansion at Heathrow, which was agreed by the Council. The Motion read:

“Mindful of the massive, positive, economic impact that a vibrant and viable Heathrow has on the economy of Spelthorne, and in particular the 3,600 families who rely directly upon it for their income, this Council warmly welcomes the recent Government announcement of the third runway. We are of course mindful of environmental and noise concerns and will work with Heathrow and other stakeholders to ensure those are mitigated.”

 

The petition from Stanwell’s Green Lungs is asking a number of bodies and organisations to “actively oppose” what the petitioners call the “detrimental plans” being put forward by Heathrow around expansion. It is also asking for the Council to “engage with the Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Ashford North Communities”. Unfortunately, I am not able to speak on behalf of others such as the Home Office, but I can speak on behalf of Spelthorne Council. 

I can confidently say that over the past three years we have actively engaged with those communities who will be most directly affected by the expansion, as proposed in its current form. Presentations, along with question and answer sessions, have been held both here at the Council Offices and in Stanwell Moor and Stanwell on a number of occasions.  During the most recent Heathrow Airport Expansion Consultation we issued over 7,000 leaflets to those areas most affected to raise awareness. Our Community Development Manager has been working hard with local communities to understand their concerns to feed into this Councils response. There is Councillor representation on the internal Heathrow Expansion Working Group to ensure community views are fed in to all Council responses. We also set up our own email account so that residents could feed their comments directly into us as well as to Heathrow on their expansion plans. I am confident that we have actively engaged with our communities and Iistened to what they have said. 

 

It is clear from the 173 page detailed technical response which is on this Cabinet agenda that the Council has a number of issues around the current proposals for an expanded Heathrow. These have been distilled into a series of 80 detailed actions that we expect Heathrow to respond to positively at a technical level. Overview and Scrutiny, as you have just heard, have set out a number of high level strategic demands. This includes those areas that the petitioners have raised around loss of green space through the creation of a Southern Parkway and two substantial construction sites which will be in situ for a generation. 

 

In a large number of areas information is scant or entirely absent, which means we are not in a position to make informed judgements on a number of key issues such as transport impacts (and how they affect our residents).  We are not convinced that Heathrow have fully engaged with all those affected in a meaningful and transparent way. This reflects the views we have heard from our residents, and we will continue to make these points to Heathrow.

 

Heathrow is an important driver economically for businesses and jobs in Spelthorne. The airport currently generates 72,000 direct jobs, with an additional 114,000 in the supply chain. It is a significant employer in the borough with around 6.9% of the boroughs total workforce working there. This increases to just over 25% in Stanwell North.

 

With expansion, the expectation is that the number of jobs will increase by around 26,800 to 99,500. These roles will require different skills sets, offering careers (with progression opportunities) rather than simply a job.

 

An expanded Heathrow would deliver an additional 5,000 apprenticeships. Many of these would be brand new posts. Others would include the upskilling of existing staff. We need to ensure that our residents are given a guaranteed opportunity to access these apprenticeships. 

 

We have the UK’s biggest ‘port’ on our doorstep. In 2017, £106bn of UK goods travelled through Heathrow – more, by value, than Felixstowe and Southampton combined (£96m). 33% of all UK long-haul goods by value travel via Heathrow. Gatwick by comparison is 0.23%. Without increasing the connections to additional cities around the world, the UK may to lose its place in the world as the 5th largest economy as other nations compete for markets to increase trading opportunities.

 

The future prosperity of the UK is important for all of us. With a third runway, estimates by the Government and the Airports Commission put benefits to passengers and the wider economy would be between £61 billion to £211bn over 60 years, This will be critical in helping the UK to increase the share of the market with the rest of the world beyond the E.U and help to maintain and create jobs as well as increasing prosperity.

 

Locally, Spelthorne is home to major worldwide brands such as BP, Shepperton Studios, Netflix and Wood Group amongst others. Proximity to Heathrow is undoubtedly a pull factor. These companies bring opportunities for our residents to access quality jobs. An expanded Heathrow will also give local businesses the chance to access their substantial supply chain.

 

I entirely agree with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion that the expansion as currently proposed is not the right one for our communities. What is not without doubt though is that Heathrow needs a third runway due to the economic benefits that it will bring.

 

Turning now to the two other matters raised in the petition. As a Council we have clearly stated on a number of occasions that the Immigration removal Centre must not be located within this borough. The current Airport Expansion Consultation shows the IRC located in the London Borough of Hounslow, but we understand that the final location will be determined by the Home Office, based on their requirements. We wrote to the Home Office last year and set out in the strongest terms possible why the IRC must not be in our borough. We will continue to push to ensure that this stays the case.

 

As regards Oak Leaf Farm, Surrey County Council have currently allocated the site as one with potential for all types of waste treatment. They are not formally proposing thermal treatment but have said that it is a possibility. As a Council, we are objecting to the potential scale of use on the site. Councillors wrote to Surrey County Council at the end of their formal consultation back in March 2019 stating that the Council will not accept incinerator or thermal waste treatment on this site. Officers from the Council will be appearing on 17and 18 and 24 and 25 September at the Inquiry into the Minerals and Waste Plan to ensure our objections are set out very clearly in front of the independent Inspector.

 

Resolved not to take the action requested in the petition for the reasons stated.

 

The Group Head for Regeneration and Growth advised Cabinet that the detailed technical responses at Appendix 3 had been reviewed by a team of external legal experts with a view to bolstering the legal references in that document. The document before Cabinet would therefore be subject to further minor alterations in relation to the technical details.

 

The Cabinet considered the report on the response to Heathrow’s airport expansion proposals together with the appendices including the covering letter (which was tabled at the meeting), key issues and benefits, and detailed responses.

 

The Leader made the following statement in relation to the Council’s response to the consultation and the recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

 

“Over the summer, Heathrow have been consulting on their current Airport Expansion proposals (including their preferred masterplan). This has provided some more detail around what the expansion would look like, and how it would take place. However, despite the substantial volume of material produced for the consultation, there remains a wealth of information, detail and strategies that are missing, or not yet available. In many cases, this will only be submitted with the application for Development Consent which is far too late.

 

This means that we have not been able to fully assess the impact of Heathrow’s current expansion proposals on the borough or our residents. Our response has therefore had to focus on what we do know, whilst at the same time highlighting the deficiencies.

 

There is the risk that fundamental issues remain unconsidered and unresolved without the opportunity for Spelthorne (and others) to have meaningful engagement in this process. This would represent a flaw in Heathrow’s consultation and we intend to raise it with the Planning Inspectorate when asked for our views on its adequacy if further consultation does not occur.

 

The Council has always been consistently clear that expansion cannot be at the expense of local communities or the environment. Cabinet do not intend to change from this stance. It is clear from the detailed technical response on the agenda this evening that our environment and our communities, and particularly Stanwell Moor and Stanwell Village, will be affected by the proposed expansion as currently proposed. We are clear that our northernmost communities will be newly impacted by the expansion.

 

Heathrow must ensure that Stanwell Moor and Stanwell Village are properly compensated via the Wider Property Offer Zone. This is one of the requirements recommended by Overview and Scrutiny which I will shortly propose that Cabinet endorse.

 

There is however an alternative proposal on the table called Heathrow West, which could potentially have a lesser impact on the borough. It could also be built within a shorter time frame (reducing the impact on our communities). This scheme is at an earlier stage of development, but, as recommended by Overview and Scrutiny Committee, I agree should nevertheless be explored in more detail to see if it is a viable alternative.  

 

Despite our issues with Heathrow’s current expansion proposal, it does not automatically follow that there should be an in principle objection to the creation of a new northwest runway per se. In contrast to the recommendation from Overview and Scrutiny Committee, I suggest it is important to distinguish between the principle and the detail.

 

Resolved that Cabinet:

1.    Can only re-affirm the Council’s support for a third runway and appropriate and proportionate expansion, subject to the following:

a)    We endorse the 16 requirements as recommended by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (set out below);

b)    We expressly reiterate our demands that our impacted communities be properly compensated via the Wider Property Offer Zone scheme; and

c)    We seek to further explore the Heathrow West proposal and to ascertain if this is a viable proposition.

 

And

2.    Agrees the covering letter in appendix 2 and the detailed responses as set out in the updated appendix 3 subject to further clarification of the technical details, as part of our consultation submission to Heathrow.

 

The 16 requirements recommended by Overview and Scrutiny Committee which Cabinet endorses are:

1. Third runway, with capped growth of 740,000 Air Traffic Movements (ATM’s) per annum by 2040, with no early release of 25,000 ATMs pa before a third runway is operational
2. That the expansion should include Heathrow T5X and T2 only, with further consideration given to the Heathrow West scheme
3. That any increase in car parking must be at the Northern Parkway or along Bath Road only
4. There must be no Southern Parkway, no Truck Park, no HGV filling station or associated lorry movements to the Crooked Billet, and Heathrow need to move new and re-aligned roads further away from Stanwell Moor
5. Deliver a genuine 'world class' integrated compensation and mitigation package, including Wider Property Offer Zone for Stanwell Moor and part of Stanwell village
6. To provide enhanced multi-purpose community halls for Stanwell Moor and Stanwell village as a positive legacy for the communities
7. Commitment to deliver 1,500 new apprenticeships for local colleges within the borough (Brooklands College in Ashford)
8. Controlled Parking Zones for Stanwell Moor, Stanwell village, and Ashford north of A308 and other areas as deemed appropriate by the Council – to be in place by the time the third runway is operational and to be funded in full by Heathrow
9. Southern Light Rail (SLR) to be built before the third runway is operational, and for the Council to work positively with Heathrow to ensure that they deliver
10. No Construction sites at CS10 or CS11 operating 24/7 365 days a year north of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor
11. Deliver continuous improvement and enhanced mitigation to neutralise air quality impacts to below legal limits on local communities 
12. Comply with the Committee on Climate Change Further Ambitions Scenario (in order to deliver a reduction to 30 million tonnes CO2 in 2050)
13. Deliver continuous improvement by actively and directly reducing noise levels for aircraft and the airport (using 2013 baseline)
14. Night flights to be banned for 8 hours overnight, except for emergencies (World Health Organisation guidelines)
15. Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) must be outside the borough  and
16. Protect Staines Moor in perpetuity and ensure no changes to the River Colne upstream which might have an adverse impact on the biodiversity of the SSSI.

 

Reason for decision

As the borough which is probably most heavily impacted by the proposed expanded airport, it is critical that Cabinet makes sure that its views are fed into this formal consultation process (which is the last one before Heathrow submit their Development Consent Order). The Council needs to ensure it protects the quality of life of its residents, and makes Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) fully aware of the Council’s requirements.