Agenda item

21/03303/F - Titan House, Crossoak Lane, Salfords

The demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii)), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application at Titan House, Crossoak Lane, Salfords for the demolition of existing buildings (2) and the erection of two any industrial processes (class e (g) (iii), general industrial (use class b2) storage and/or distribution (use class b8) units with ancillary office accommodation, together with other associated parking, servicing landscape and infrastructure.

 

Mr Robert Jeffery, a local resident, spoke in objection to the development, asking that the Committee refuse the application. The following points were made:

 

  • Planning Policy DES1 of the Council’s Management Plan supported residents’ view that permission should not be granted in that: “Planning permission will be granted for new development where it provides an appropriate environment for future occupants whilst not adversely impacting upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings, including by way of overbearing, obtrusiveness, overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy.” Two further measurements were highlighted which proved it was ‘overbearing and overshadowing’. The  ‘overbearing’ nature of the application which would be 25 metres from the living room window of 11 Empire Villas.
  • A recent site visit to the road showed the light penetrating through the boundary trees, not just over the top of them. The proposed building would overshadow and block out the light throughout the year regardless of where the sun might be in the sky and regardless of any daylight or sunlight report and the 25 and 45 degree measurements.
  • In addition to the height, the width of the proposed building was more than 127 metres long, (ie 22 metres longer than a Premier League football pitch), running along the length of the Empire Villas residential road, from 28 Beechwood Villas on the corner of Bonehurst Road, right up to 11 Empire Villas. Regardless of the height of the trees and bushes, the objector said this would block out light from the eastern edge by the railway line to the western edge of Bonehurst Road.
  • The objector referred to the nearby Goya Developments buildings on the south side of Cross Oak Lane which he said were 15.4 metres from the edge of Bonehurst Road, the A23. He said this proposal was only about 7 metres from the edge of the Empire Villas’ residential road. The Goya units nearest the A23 have a parapet height of 12 metres which was 1.2 metres lower than this proposal of 13.2 metres. This did not have any other buildings, such as private homes, next to or close to that neighbouring site.
  • The objector argued for permission not to be granted for this new development as it would adversely impact the amenity of occupants of the existing buildings due to its height, its width and its proximity to Empire Villas residential road. In his view this did not meet planning policy outlined in DES1.

Paul Stoodley, the Applicant and CEO of Salmon Property (Horley), spoke in support of the application. The following points were made:

 

  • Planning Officers’ reports to the Planning Committee on each of two previous occasions (8 June 2022 and 6 July 2022) and to this Committee (27 July 2022) had supported the application and recommended it for approval. The applicant had looked carefully and objectively at the application following the previous two Committee meetings.
  • The applicant’s Counsel (leading planning barrister) had critically reviewed the approach; a leading daylight and sunlight specialist had assessed the application using accepted modelling techniques. Both of these reports had been shared with officers and extended to Committee Members. Counsel opinion did not view how the application could be refused on a rational basis.
  • A daylight/sunlight practitioner had confirmed that the scheme accorded with all the relevant standards (with or without the trees) for the scheme (before the height had been reduced as a concession). It was a technically compliant scheme.
  • The site was an allocated major employment site which was suitable in terms of what such sites need to deliver currently for employers. The developers were seeking to provide what companies needed to operate successfully to be able to provide jobs and salaries. The applicants’ investment on this site, of many millions of pounds, was coming at a time when the economy was hesitating.
  • Alternatives to this proposal needed to be considered fully by the Committee. Any future development would encapsulate buildings up against the boundary of Empire Villas to meet planning policy requirements to efficiently reuse a brownfield site. The proposal was a good design scheme.
  • The proposal was supported by environmental health officers in terms of shielding the residents from an active service yard.
  • A package of concessions was put before Members in the report to the Committee. The height had been reduced twice and the applicant had offered a no left turn on the road. The application was currently within control of the council. If it was refused, the applicant would take it to appeal. The applicant confirmed that the property company would then revert to the original scheme.
  • Two companies were interested in taking space in the units. One of them had supported the application with written support with over 50 skilled jobs available; similarly a larger organisation that wanted to relocate from London.
  • This was a final opportunity to support recommendations to approve the application and avoid the waste and cost of an appeal, set against legal opinion that in Counsel’s view it will be unreasonable to refuse it.

 

Salfords and Sidlow Parish Councillor, Jim Blackmore, asked to speak on behalf of the residents but this was not agreed by the Chairman.

 

A point of order was then raised by Committee Member, Councillor Harrison. He said the applicant had referred in his comments to the Committee to legal opinion from their Counsel that had been provided to Committee Members. However this same advice had not been made available to the objectors.

 

Committee Chairman, Councillor Parnall, confirmed that the legal advice had been made available to Committee Members as decision makers. The Council’s Planning Solicitor confirmed that legal opinion had been made available to all Planning Committee Members as decision makers; objectors had not been disadvantaged.

 

A motion setting out two Reasons for Refusal were put forward to the Committee, proposed by Councillor McKenna and seconded by Councillor Chester which was as follows:

 

1.The proposed development by reason of its poor relationship to neighbouring housing in terms of the large size and industrial scale of the proposed unit and its close proximity to the northern boundary with Empire Villas would fail to respect the character of the adjoining residential area, including its street scene, in particular the height of the proposed unit being greater than existing vegetation will have an overpowering and dominating effect on houses in Empire Villas. This is contrary to Policy CS10 of the Reigate and Banstead core strategy and contrary to Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead DMP 2019 and provisions within the National Policy Framework.

 

2. The proposed development by reason of the close proximity to the northern boundary, its width which extends development across almost the entire length of the northern boundary and its substantial height would adversely impact the amenity of occupants of Empire Villas and nearby dwellings by way of overbearing impact and obtrusiveness contrary to policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 and provisions within the National Policy Framework.

 

Following a vote by Members of the Committee, the tabled motion at the meeting giving reasons to refuse planning permission, set out above, was defeated.

 

It was then RESOLVED to proceed to a vote on the report recommendation to Approve the application.

 

The proposal was then voted on by Members of the Committee. Following the vote, the application was APPROVED.

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions set out in the report to Committee:

 

Subject to the completion of all documentation required to create a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended to secure):

 

(i)               Contribution of £6150 towards auditing of the travel plan

(ii)              The Council’s legal costs in preparing the agreement.

 

In the event that a satisfactorily completed obligation is not received by 8 November 2022 or such longer period as may be agreed, the Head of Places and Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the following reason:

 

  1. Without a completed planning obligation the proposal fails to provide adequate contribution towards auditing of the Travel Plan and is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Reigate and Banstead Core Strategy 2014 Policy CS17 (Travel Options and Accessibility).

 

Supporting documents: