Minutes:
Proposal: Development of the site to provide industrial, storage and distribution (Class E(g)/B2/B8) floorspace, with ancillary office accommodation, associated parking, landscaping and infrastructure works (Revised plans received 27/05/22)
A member asked questions with regards the details of the environmental impact assessment for the site. Thy asked about the effect on species such as slow worms, lapwings, common lizards and grass snakes, as well as the accuracy of the reported population numbers. It was advised that extensive effort had gone into securing a reptile mitigation strategy by condition following meetings between and ecologists Surrey Wildlife Trust, who had confirmed the proposal was acceptable to them in environmental terms.
In response to concerns over the potential flood risk, the flood risk assessment had concluded that the site would prove betterment in terms of fluvial flooding, whilst a sustainable urban drainage system would also provide betterment to surface water flooding by holding the water in attenuation areas and releasing it, similar to greenfield rates. The proposal had been considered acceptable by both the lead local flood authority and Environment Agency. Officers confirmed that the condition to maintain surface water drainage was secured for the duration of the development.
There was a query around highways assessment and the impact of the development on New Haw Road, in particular a recent report that suggested that the traffic peaks and lows had shifted since the Covid-19 pandemic. Officers explained that advice was taken from Surrey County Council as highways authority, who had confirmed that the impact would not be severe as a result of the development, which was the relevant planning test set in the NPPF, and even a shift in peak and low hours would not have a material impact on the planning assessment.
Some benefits of the scheme were acknowledged by the committee, notably the toucan crossing, link to and ongoing maintenance of the canal footpath, and height warning sign on the bridge, but a member queried whether having an informative around liaising with the National Grid around power was appropriate and whether that should instead be a condition given the impact this may have on residents.
It was advised that with regards this development this was a matter for the applicant and the power company, but it was in the strong interest of the applicant to ensure there was sufficient power available, and an informative rather than condition was considered appropriate.
Acknowledging concerns raised around the potential for over-shadowing and loss of light, officers considered that appropriate separation distances were in place. There was a significant separation distance available to habitable rooms and primary amenity spaces.
A Member asked about an additional informative around increasing landscaping in the event that a residential property was overlooked. Officers advised that increasing landscaping to prevent overlooking would not be appropriate as the density of landscaping can vary depending on the time of year, however suggested an additional condition could be included specifying that no rear windows could be inserted in the rear elevation of the units facing the residential dwellings. The condition was moved and seconded and supported by committee.
A ward member highlighted an online residents’ petition of some 266 signatures that were against the proposal, stating the main objections being what the residents considered was a valuable local amenity – the claim that that the land was unused was disputed as it was considered valuable territory for dog walkers and runners – and the impact on traffic and flooding, as well as wildlife habitats. The member felt that it would not be possible to move some of the affected wildlife to a different location without causing undue stress to the species’ involved.
There was significant debate around the hours of operation, with a strong sense from the committee that 24-7 operating hours would not be appropriate and whilst it was acknowledged that the site had been identified for employment in Runnymede’s local plan, the hours of operation should be adjusted to something more acceptable to residents. It was added that existing sites on the other side of the railway line would be accessed by HGVs from the A3 and Seven Hills Road, which was predominantly away from residential dwellings, whereas access to this site was likely to be from junction 11 of the M25 and through Addlestone.
Officers highlighted the noise mitigation strategy, adding that the noise impact assessment had been considered by peer review and deemed appropriate, even during the two busiest hours of 6am – 7am and 10pm – 11pm, subject to the installation of the acoustic fencing. It was added that a reason for refusal about potential impacts upon neighbours at the Weybridge Business Park scheme recently considered by planning committee had recently not been upheld by the planning inspector. However each case must be judged on its own merits.
Officers further advised that 24/7 usage would be highly desirable for the applicant as no end user had been secured and any adjustment in hours of operation would make the site a less attractive prospect.
The committee noted officer advice and there was significant debate about appropriate hours. The applications at Weybridge Business Park was dismissed due to the scale of the development, as the appeal was dismissed no conditions were considered or imposed by the inspector. A second application had been granted permission at Weybridge Business Park with an hours of use restriction.
7am – 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am – 1pm on Saturday was put forward by a member, however officers advised these hours would not be acceptable to the applicant and almost certainly appealed. Furthermore due regard would have to be given to the Weybridge Business Park scheme, which had operating hours of 7am – 9pm seven days a week. The same rationale applied to a further suggestion of limiting night-time operations to 8pm to coincide with children’s bedtimes.
A further suggestion of 6am – 11pm was proposed and based on being similar to aircraft noise, which affected other properties in the borough. Members felt that this was more generous than the Weybridge Business Park consent, provided practical options for operators, and took in to account the relationship with nearby properties. As a matter of planning judgement this was considered to strike the right balance at this site given its particular circumstances.
These proposed hours were moved and seconded and approved by committee.
It was resolved that –
Part A
The Head of Planning was authorised to grant planning permission subject to:
· The completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure the following obligations:
1. Travel Plan which shall include measures based on the Framework Travel Plan.
2. £6150 Travel Plan auditing fee.
3. Low Emissions Strategy (LES) which shall include a monitoring fee
4. Off-site Highway works to be completed prior to first being occupied or first opened for trading.
· VAS (Vehicle Activated Signage) located on Byfleet Road north and south of the Byfleet and New Haw restricted height railway bridge
· Pedestrian and cycle link from Byfleet Road to the Wey Towpath
· Toucan crossing on Byfleet Road
· Planning conditions 1-30.
· Additional condition preventing the installation of windows to the rear of each of the commercial buildings.
· Additional condition restricting the hours of operation to 6am – 11pm.
· Informatives 1-19.
· Addendum notes.
Part B
The HoP was authorised to refuse planning permission should the S106 not progress to his satisfaction or if any significant material considerations arise prior to the issuing of the decision notice that in the opinion of the HoP would warrant refusal of the application.
Nigel Carter (on behalf of New Haw Residents Association) and Nick Green (on behalf of the applicant) addressed the committee on this application.
Supporting documents: