Proposal: Industrial redevelopment to provide x3 units within Classes E(g)ii (Research and development), E(g)iii (Industrial processes), B2 (General industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) use, with ancillary office accommodation, new vehicular access, associated external yard areas, HGV and car parking, servicing, external lighting, hard and soft landscaping, infrastructure and all associated works following the demolition of existing buildings.

A Member queried the disparity in figures of HGV movements produced by the Highways Authority and National Highways Authority against research residents had undertaken, and the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control advised that the assessment of the Highways Authority had concluded even in the worst case scenario the Increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements during peak times was likely to be relatively modest, and whilst it would result in further increases during non-peak times (and a higher overall total number of movements across the day), sufficient capacity would be available in the road network to absorb the increase without a “severe” impact arising.  Therefore both National Highways and the Local Highway Authority (SCC) had concluded the scheme was acceptable in highways terms.

It was added that the Local Highways Authority had seen the research commissioned by residents, including its differing conclusions on differing peak hours, however this had not caused them to change their opinion.  A ratio had been applied to the impact of HGVs against cars to ensure the impact received a fair comparison to the potential lawful use of the offices at full capacity.

In response to a query about the buildings’ use as an office building fundamentally changing post-pandemic due to fewer people using offices, The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control highlighted that due regard had to be given to the fallback position, which could potentially mean full office use in future. Due regard must be had to lawful fallback positions in decision making.

A ward Member highlighted the impact the application had taken on local residents, many of whom had gathered in the public gallery, and felt that the local and national road network infrastructure could not support such the increase in traffic resulting from the application.

The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control confirmed to a Member that the cumulative impact of a large number of schemes was taken into consideration by the Highways Authority, who considered new and proposed schemes in highway modelling. These matters are also given strategic consideration in plan making.

Responding to concerns about the sustainability of the development, the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control advised that the developer proposed to use sustainable materials, including photo voltaic panels and air source heat pumps, whilst there would be around a 60% increase in biodiversity net gain.

Noting the National Trust’s objection to the application, the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control confirmed that the National Trust were not a statutory consultee, and their primary function was to represent heritage assets rather than consider the full merits of the planning application.  Planning officers had given due regard to the objection and considered that the planting and landscaping at the location, along with moving Building 100 further away from the riverbank, offered appropriate mitigation.

A Member raised the issue of air quality, and it was confirmed that Environmental Health had not raised an objection, and it was felt that utilising the site to its capacity for office space would provide similar vehicle emissions.  A Member also commented on the increased HGV movements in the borough could deter some residents from cycling.

The full impact of operational noise pollution would not be fully known at the planning stage, however best endeavours had been made to mitigate this by securing acoustic fencing, this could potentially be dealt with by conditions. Some members however expressed concerns that noise and similar harms could arise, particularly at anti-social times.

Significant weight should be given to the economic benefits, with a large number of job opportunities being created on what was currently a dormant office site.  The Committee were advised they had to weigh up the economic benefits against what they considered the potential harms of the scheme.  A Member noted that unemployment levels in the borough were relatively low, however the weight placed upon creating job opportunities was a material consideration regardless of where residents lived.

The Assistant Development Manager confirmed that minimal light overspill was anticipated for the Wey or Bourne, however a condition of the application stated that a sensitive lighting scheme would have to be in place that was reviewed by an ecologist. 

A Member asked about the possibility of limiting the hours of operation at the site, but the Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control advised that the applicant had not asked for a restriction in operating hours and had indicated that such a move would be contrary to their business model and put them at a disadvantage against its competitors and therefore they would not be willing to accept such a condition.

The Committee Chair noted the work officers had done with the applicant to move the main building on the site – Building 100 – away from the canal, but given its bulk, scale size and mass still felt it dominated the surrounding area, being far in excess of other buildings already on the site.

A Member talked about an audit from 2016 that stated that the Addlestonemoor roundabout was already operating beyond capacity at its peak, and asked why a new audit had not been carried out.  The Corporate Head of Development Management and Building Control acknowledged there were pressures on the roads in the borough, which would in part be mitigated by ongoing work on the A320 following a successful Highways Infrastructure Fund bid.  However, planning applications were not designed to solve existing problems, and the application was unlikely to have a significantly greater impact on the highway network than the fallback use of an office block operating at full capacity. There was no objection from the Highway Authority.

During the debate several Members voiced significant concern about the change of residential amenity due to noise and other disturbance and the impact that night-time use of the site could have on local residents.

A named vote was requested on the application, and the voting was as follows:

For (0)

-

Against (15)

Cllrs M. Willingale, P. Snow, A. Balkan, J. Broadhead, R. Bromley, V. Cunningham, C. Howorth, A. King, I. Mullens, C. Mann, M. Nuti, S. Ringham, S. Whyte, S. Williams, J. Wilson

Abstain (0)

-

The motion to approve therefore failed.

Further debate occurred on the item for grounds of refusal, and a number of potential issues were discussed. Several Members put forward a motion for refusal on the basis of mass, scale, size and bulk, along with the loss of residential amenity to surrounding residential properties at various times of the day and night.  This proposal was supported by other Members.  A further named vote was requested on the resolution to refuse permission, and the voting was as follows:

For (15)

Cllrs M. Willingale, P. Snow, A. Balkan, J. Broadhead, R. Bromley, V. Cunningham, C. Howorth, A. King, I. Mullens, C. Mann, M. Nuti, S. Ringham, S. Whyte, S. Williams, J. Wilson

Against (0)

-

Abstain (0)

-

This motion to refuse permission passed and therefore it was resolved that:

Resolved that –

The CHDMBC was authorised to REFUSE planning permission due to:

i)               The proposed ‘Building 100’ by reason of its position, form, scale, mass and significant bulk would result in an overtly prominent, dominant and visually overbearing form of development which would have a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the area.

ii)             The proposed use would result in a loss of residential amenity to surrounding residential properties. This loss of amenity would be due to due noise and disturbance from both the on-site operations as well as disturbance from the likely significant numbers of comings and goings of large goods vehicles that the proposed uses would attract, particularly at anti-social hours of the day and night.

At the start of the debate Ms Heidi Dennis, an objector, and Mr Nick Green, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the committee on this application.